Singapore's
New taboo
Lively forum on a problem that mainstream media avoids - scholar-bureaucrats system when it doesn't work. Extracted from kitana.wordpress.com
Oct 1, 2006

I was talking to a friend, who was telling me about a person he was working for at his new job in the government service. Apparently his superior was not a very good boss; to put it lightly.

He made my friend and his team do most of the work that he himself was supposed to do, and he just sat back and relaxed. With a naggy compulsion in the back of my mind, I asked my friend the dreaded question: "Is he a scholar?"

And the answer: Yes. A PSC scholar.

Apparently these guys get put on the fast track and are under the radar, so unless they majorly screw up, their work ethic doesn't seem to matter too much, so it appears. They can slack off, get people to do their work for them and still get that nice fat paycheck and that guaranteed promotion. So I've heard.

And in the papers recently, there were reports of GLCs such as DBS and SLA cutting back on the number of scholarships being given out. They cited the age-old problems of bond-breaking, or scholars who didn't really know what they wanted to do, such that when they came back to work for such companies, they weren't particularly enthusiastic in justifying the cost incurred in sending them overseas.

This was not a new issue. In 2002, PSC reduced the number of overseas scholarships by half, mainly because of cost-cutting and to go towards reducing the bond-breaking trend.

Besides, the word from the man in the street, is that while scholars are famous for being academically-smart and obtaining fantastic GPAs and lettered qualifications; most of them just end up being efficient administrators and little more.

A lot of scholars have been accused of being so divorced from the lifestyles of the common man, most of them having been from middle-income families, and having never experienced any form of hardship or failure in their lives. They do call it "fast-track" after all. From the time they complete their A-Levels, their lives are meticulously being mapped out for them for cushy jobs in the civil service.

When I was in JC, I was one of those that had had the ideal of the scholarship hawked to me through various talks and seminars. I was being told of all the doors it could open, all the universities I could go to, the kind of life, replete with prestige and money that I could gain. All mapped out for me from the time I was 18.

Most of my friends were completely sold to the scholarship idea. I can't deny that I was, as well. Most of my friends didn't really know what they wanted to do with their lives. We were all arts students, so medicine, engineering, and all other sciences were pretty much closed to us.

But we were being sold the idea of being able to read subjects such as literature and history - interesting subjects that we could be passionate about, even knowing that they had less practical significance in pragmatic Singapore as compared to the sciences or other considered-more-substantial topics - in exotic foreign universities from Oxford to Cambridge to Harvard to the MIT, without having to pay a single cent.

This was almost like a dream come true. Sure, we knew about the 6-year bond, we knew about the secondment to the civil service and the public administration thereafter, but the job wasn't something that most people considered. You would never have a passion for anything you didn't really think of. Plus, the dream of studying overseas was one that seemed a 100 times more attractive than contemplating the future post-graduation.

Many students who became scholars go in with their eyes half-closed. They get these scholarships based on their paper grades, their CCA records, and their performance at a couple of rounds of interviews.

Of course, for PSC there is also an additional psychology test. But it is from these paper qualifications and interviews alone, that the board decides whether a student is scholar material. The problem with this process is that:

1) Not that much can be found out about a person from his qualifications or just an interview. Sure, you can determine how intelligent, determined and accomplished a person is, or how well he articulates himself. This does go some way to assessing a person's mettle as scholarship material. Unfortunately, as I have seen for myself, some people get it wrong. I've seen people whom I've personally known to be articulate, but singularly lazy or irresponsible, end up brandishing such scholarships. Or even brilliant people - who are apart from their brilliance, otherwise rather worthless as beings (i.e. lack of character) - making the cut. On the other hand, I have also seen people whom we all expected to get those coveted scholarships… to just not make the cut. Maybe they might have fumbled at a particular interview or something like that; but no matter. The interview is unforgiving and for that, some people who though deserving, just might not make it.

2) Most of the people who make the cut for scholarships tend to be from one mould alone. I've seen scholars who are different, and some who are really capable; but a lot of scholars tend to be… well… singularly unimpressive. I'm not making a generalisation, but a lot of people just seem to be the same. Guai, a bit boring, tend to be a stickler for rules and even if they might not agree with certain public policies, they subsume dissent for the job that lies ahead. The perfect administrator… but little more. And because most scholars tend to come from only a couple of schools with a similar culture, they also tend to be a bit out of touch with the rest of the world outside of this certain class and world - i.e. the common man. As such, when they end up installing policies for the government, it seems difficult for them to understand how the common man thinks or will react to those policies.

Scholarships are now becoming the new taboo in Singapore. The most famous mechanism for recruiting the brilliant into our administration and our government - which was once revered for getting the best and the brightest - is now being turn out to be something of a failure.

Many of the so-called best and the brightest might be all that academically, no doubt about it, but people are beginning to see that they don't seem to have the kind of honour (i.e. in bond-breaking), or a mind of their own to bring in edgy new policies, or resonate with the larger population enough.

In fact, most of these people just end up getting subsumed into the larger governmental unit, and becoming little more than just another cog in the wheel. We don't seem to be getting any edgy new policies or ideas, we don't seem to be getting much intellectual progress; we seem to be stuck in this perpetual limbo whereby everything doesn't seem to have changed very much.

Perhaps everyone just ends up saying "yes" to the paymasters in return for the pay package; as such the best and the brightest are just going to waste as they realise that there is little to change.

But sadly for me, I am among them. I am not among the best and the brightest; but I am part of the brand of the taboo. I signed on the dotted line after I turned 19, pledging four years of my life to wearing not black and white, but blue; and not working in swanky Shenton Way, but on the streets running around with handcuffs and a singular mind.

I may be studying law, but I'm not going to be a lawyer. I'm not going to do my pupilage and I'm not going to do the bar. I signed 4 years ago, because I believed. I hoped that I would get a chance to go overseas. I wanted to ease the financial burden of my university education on my parents. And I wanted the job. I wanted interesting, action-packed. I wanted to be able to see parts of society that as a student of one of those few institutions and having been from one of those families, I would never have been able to see otherwise.

I suppose what sets me apart from most other scholars, is that firstly, I didn't go overseas for more than a year; and secondly, I took my scholarship not because I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life, but because I wanted the career that I chose. Sure, there was a little bit of resistance from my parents concerning the nature of the job, but having been raised on a diet of too many 'Police Story's and 'Miami Vice' (of the Don Johnson variety), I believed that I could have a job that would firstly be more exciting than any other regular 9-to-5 job, as well as one that would allow me to actually contribute to society, seeing how many people come to the police for help.

I suppose my biggest struggle now, is not so much that I've changed my mind about my dreams or the nature of the job, but rather 2 points of possible contention:

1) I fear that I will be one of those being compelled to maintain Singapore's 'public order' by cracking down on possible dissidents or actions of similar political implications. I believe that the police are a force that serves the nation, that we serve to maintain order and security, not for the good of any one party, but for the good of the citizens as a whole. We work within the confines of the law and we serve to uphold the law. But sometimes the way the law itself is being used a justification for actions with very vague moral and legal boundaries, it worries me that I will be forced to make a call or an order that I don't want to. And I fear that it will come to that, because my idealism is being tested with every article and picture I see.

2) There are many ways to make changes. Some people choose to do it from outside the system - like Chee Soon Juan and JB Jeyaratnam. Some people choose to do it from within the system, such as LTK or CST. While change is much slower from the inside, I believe that it is possible. Even if change cannot be brought about in large ways, it can still be brought about in small ways. A friendly smile, a helping hand, a bit of consideration and a bit of flexibility when dealing with people, can turn someone's day around entirely. And in my future line of work, I know that I will have many opportunities to turn someone's day around - be it for better or worse. But what I fear is that I might end up being subsumed into the popular culture. That for my paycheck or for my job, I might have to suppress and ultimately abandon my ideas to stay independent from the greater governmental machinery, and that I will become one of those scholars who have brought a bad name to the rest of us.

It's one of those things that I fear. I never see myself as a scholar because I am somewhat embarrassed to, yet I find myself having to admit this because at least I can give a different perspective (of sorts) on scholarship.

I personally don't think that scholarships are a good idea; but to take them away does deprive people with dreams and expectations the chance to achieve these dreams.

I suppose the scholarship system is one that has to be tweaked; with some kind of mechanism that enables the boards to choose their future-scholars more selectively. But then again, what mechanism can we possibly implement? The qualifications of grades itself alienates a large portion of society from the selection process, some of whom might end up being very capable of contribution.

But I suppose this is how the world works, and it is difficult to change a system that has so functioned for so long.

I suppose in the meantime, young people will continue to dream of scholarships, while everyone else will continue to condemn those who have one. The new taboo! While for me, I just want to be everything but what it is that constitutes that taboo.

Comments (Excerpts)

By Kway Teow Man
The path of the scholar is not so much the path of prestige, but the path of service to your fellow man. The fact that you were chosen as a scholar demonstrates that the system is not completely broken.
It is clear from your writings that you have a heart for public service which is why the KTM left a comment on an earlier blog entry urging you to consider joining the Legal Service upon graduation (without knowing that you are a Police scholar). It is not too late. The KTM suspects that you can still apply for a transfer after you graduate.
Fundamentally, the problem we are grappling with is that too many scholarships are being offered and we are scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Scholarship numbers are being reduced probably because there is a realisation that the supply (of talent) is insufficent to meet demand (number of scholarships offered).
SLA commented that they couldn't find a suitable candidate for their overseas scholarship. The fact that they cannot find a suitable candidate doesn't mean no one applied. The KTM is quite sure some did - but they are just not good enough for SLA to want to spend the kinds of monies involved and the KTM applauds the SLA for not wasting taxpayers' monies by being discriminating.
The reason why so many scholarships are offered in the first place is that it's a moral hazard. The fellows who were giving it out weren't paying for it. For the top few individuals in each cohort, the KTM believes that the marginal returns on the scholarship (even after taking into account the risks of bond breaking) are still positive. It falls rapidly to zero however and changes sign way before the current scholarship numbers are reached.
Some fellows don't understand that a mismatch in supply and demand doesn't necessarily mean that the system is broken - though it might be; or it could just mean that the system works, but requires some tweaks in the operational parameters.

By WY
Hi. This entry struck a chord with me since I was along with you in that massive scholarship hunting process after As. Come to think of it, maybe it's good I didn't get one after all since I was free to explore my options and had the freedom of choosing whatever internship I desired to do.
At the same time, when I read that part where you mentioned about effecting change, I tend to believe more in change from within. Something like what CSJ or JBJ is doing is so radical, true and it does catch our attention but at the end of the day besides raising a few hairs or two does it really make a difference to the people up there that matter?
They're either exiled or jailed or bankrupted with no jobs or no say whatsoever. At the end of the day I believe change is something that takes time, and only by changing the prototype of the people they typically employ can they infuse new blood into the damned system.

By anonymous
My husband was an Administrative Officer in the elite civil service. He, too, believed in making changes from within.
Unfortunately, after 10 years, he too concluded that there is no such possibility. One can dream on but in a system that is so entrenched with the old, the spider webs will suffocate you before you can even turn a finger to make that little difference.
My husband left the service 2 years ago.

By Kerio
I think the presence of the opposition and the "strong mandate" already makes it clear that we're not just trying to be sensational in our actions - we have strong grievances, which have not been made right.
This particular phrase about scholars being out of touch with "the common man" is 100% accurate. I work in a department which makes policies, and I always feel as if they aren't really thinking straight - everything's about paper statistics, how a policy sounds on paper, what they presume the people would think - all this without actually knowing for certain how the public thinks. Some of these people are the smartest 4-limbed creatures I've ever come across - sharp as knives, intelligent, well read - and paradoxically, bleeding idiots. It's the difference between reading a book on war and fighting a war - I could memorise the book up to it's punctuation but still piss my pants in the field. It's 2 different things altogether.
As for being subsumed into the bureaucratic world - it's not that easy to get away from it, not unless you're ready to stay in the same rank forever. Mavericks don't survive very long in a culture as stagnant as this. And of course, All governments eventually deviate towards aristocracy - and choosing the "elites" is a way of ensuring the trend continues. Would anyone, conceivably, elect their resident chwee kuey seller to make national policies?
It's a proverbial moebius strip, with the problem disappearing somewhere in between and resurfacing as the solution then becoming the problem again.
My advice : Emigrate.

By thecatman
It's good news that there are still scholars like yourself who have the awareness of the potential moral dilemmas being in the civil service or as a scholar. That's more than we can say for most other scholars.
On the other hand, you can't really blame the 'system' if it eventually imposes those dilemmas on you. The system is what it is. If you choose to be part of it, you have to accept that you will eventually have to make and execute decisions that you do not agree with. Plus, you have chosen it for a particular career that comes with those likely pitfalls.
I am not even sure if there's any right or wrong about it - the job is what it is. Most other jobs are the same too, except for differences in the nature of the dilemmas. Many sales guys end up as pimps, bringing girls to their clients; marketing folks have to put out products and ads that are deceptive because their bosses and companies say so; teachers in some schools often have to cave in to nasty parents, whether they like it or not.
I do hope individuals such as yourself, with that self-awareness, will eventually be able to do a bit to help change and evolve the system. You are in a 'privileged' position in that sense, unlike most of us who can only scream, beg and wonder from the outside - there's only our election votes and, erm, that's about it…

By Ptonguy
I posted this in another blog, Mr Wang Bakes Good Karma and I feel it is very relevant to the present discussion.
Original URL: http://commentarysingapore.blogspot.com/2006/09/scholarship-system-blues.html

Part 1
HI, I am a PSC Scholar and let me give my two cents worth on this issue. I apologize for any grammatical and/or spelling errors. Its getting late and I have to wake up disgustingly early tomorrow to get to camp on time.

A bit about me: I'm pretty much the typical PSC Scholar. Good A Level grades, Ivy League/Oxbridge degree, arrogant, cynical and liberal as hell. http://www.littlespeck.com/content/education/CTrendsEdu-060422.htm pretty much describes me.

I'm also quite fond of criticizing the very same scholarship system that made me (for better or worse… ok worse) into what I am. I'm simply not looking forward to working with the same people that wrote this memo: http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2004/09/our_psc_scholar.html

Ok now that you know a bit about me, here's what I have to say:
1. Mr Wang is spot on in his observations. It's the first time I've read his articles on the Singapore scholarship system and I agree with them completely. Today's scholars (at least those awarded scholarships in the 1990s - 2000s) are a different breed from the visionaries responsible for our growth as a nation in the early years. Back in those days, I suspect that scholars actually wanted to become civil servants and they wanted to serve the public and help the nation. My colleagues and I see our scholarships as personal trophies. It's quite an ego booster to be seen as "god's gift to the public service" (as we were referred to by a certain PS). By and large we come from wealthy families, stable homes and perhaps most importantly, well educated parents who saw the need to instill in us the importance of doing well in our studies. Good just wasn't enough for most of them. We needed to crush the competition and wreck the curve. It's not surprising that the typical scholar (yours truly included) is pretty darn selfish and self centered.

2. The most talented and able scholars leave the civil service (ie break our bonds) after 4 - 6 years. This gives us enough time to earn enough money to pay our steadily decreasing scholarship liability. Assuming that an overseas education costs $300k, and that it is straight-line depreciated over six years (ie 50k a year), in year 5 the bond will only be worth $100k. If you've been working in an accelerated career scheme in the civil service for 5 years you will be easily able to afford the bond and maybe business school back in the US. So what will happen is that those with the most transferable skills, the ones who are good enough to work for GS, JPM etc end up leaving the civil service, those that end up staying are the sycophants, toadies and brown-nosers who have no where else to go. At the same time, as Mr Brown mentioned the excellent non scholars (not necessarily farmers, they might have god NUS grades too but they simply aren't on scholarship) get disgusted by what they perceive as cronyism among the scholar elite and they too leave the service. So as you can see the civil service gets systematically worse with each passing year

3. We scholars are by and large a homogeneous lot. We go to the same schools, read the same books (Roald Dahl is perhaps our favourite childhood author) have the same friends. It's quite incestuous really. I don't know how rampant in breeding is but we are constantly tricked into coming for tea sessions, pot luck parties, etc that they really should have the next scholar gathering in the lobby of hotel 81 and give us copious amounts of alcohol if they really are serious about getting us to hook up. Sometimes I think that the PSC has its own GEP (Genetic Engineering Program) where they secretly hope that if you cross last year's Angus Ross prizewinner with this year's Physics Olympiad gold medalist you'll get a kid who can read Shakespeare and Stephen Hawkins before he learns to crawl. Anyway, the point I'm trying to get at is that there is an enormous tendency for group-think. We all think we are right because hey, no one is going to tell us we are wrong. And it is my opinion that over the years this has done an immeasurable amount of harm to Singapore, the most recent example being our self inflicted humiliation at this year's IMF and WB meetings. Why our scholars don't have the helicopter view needed to see that letting people protest (oh come on, it's really too hot to protest in Singapore and I was rather hoping to see that KFC girl naked) is much better than having to endure billions of dollars in negative publicity.

4. The last point I'd like to make is about scholars and business. At the moment we have many scholars running GLCs, stat boards etc. It's pretty easy to make money as the CEO of MRT or SBS but once you have to move out of your protected markets and invest in places such as China (Suzhou), India and the Middle East these scholars are going to get slaughtered. There are two reasons for this. A. Scholars are not businessmen and B. It's not their money. As a PSC scholar I've never once had to worry about money, although I did hear about the Stanford guy who blew his tuition in Vegas. We get all our fees, tuition, allowance etc up front so we've never really had to think too hard about money and when the time comes for us to allocate capital we, as a group, do a terribly poor job of it. And if were going to blow money on some investment in some developing country it's a good thing is not our money, or our clients'.

OK that's my first blog entry ever. I am a person of strong convictions but fortunately they are strong PERSONAL convictions so I don't let anyone else know, family, friends, PSC etc about how I feel. If I did I think I'd get myself into a lot of trouble. Mr Wang did an excellent job analyzing the article and giving us his take and this inspired me to write this rather long diatribe.

Part 2
Hi, it's the anonymous PSC scholar again. Here's some food for thought for all of you reading this that might be interested in a PSC scholarship. If you ever get the chance to go for a tea session ask the PSC goons there what is the PSC scholar retention rate, that is to say out of every batch of PSC scholars what % stay on after their bonds. Their answer will be something like, "We do not track the number of scholars that choose to stay. A good number of them choose to serve the Singapore people in many different capacities." Why would PSC does not track this seemingly obviously useful statistic is beyond me. The answer is probably because the number of scholars who choose to stay on is embarrassingly low. I certainly do not have official figures but I'd venture a guess that they have a retention rate of about 40% - 50%, and this number is even lower for the three ministries that will give it's employees the most transferable skills; The MFA, MTI and MOF. They are pretty worried. MFA has started hiring people that were previously rejected by the PSC or the parent ministry. (I can't seem to find the link, but its floating on the web somewhere) This is a huge step, because it means that the civil servants are admitting that they actually screwed up in the selection process.

I don't know if SPH has a 0% retention rate but I wouldn't be surprised. Journalism does have a history of attracting articulate, passionate and idealistic young people and I'm pretty sure they'd overwhelmingly reject the oppressive ever-present censorship in SPH. I know one girl from Yale who's an SPH scholar and she's smart, beautiful and in my opinion won't stay for more than three years there.

PSC does their best to keep the "Fishmonger son's works hard and gets an SAF scholarship" myth alive. The truth is 90% of us are upper middle class, and about 25% of us pretty damn fucking rich. However if PSC takes in 50 scholars a year (I think it's reduced now, not sure) the probability that at least one of them coming from a disadvantaged background is pretty high. When that happens they publicize the hell out of it. They also have the opportunity to see what your background is like when you apply for the scholarship, but to the best of my knowledge coming from a poor background gives you no statistical advantage. In fact the opposite is true; kids with good backgrounds are more likely to win such scholarships.

What is the purpose of the scholar?

To serve the people or to be a nut of the biggest machinery? But the realisation of its failure come late for those who have seen it from within. The system wants to limit "brilliant" people from being "thinking" people. "Thinking" people do not help the establishment. It is about who own the resources first. Some scholars started to "think" when they are overseas. The establishment sees that they are losing the control of these resources. You can see other means to control these resources in the work now.

By gamabunta
Very, very few teenagers know exactly what career they want to end up in, and university can change your path dramatically. Better to be ready to choose, instead of confining yourself from day 1.
Public service may sound like a noble-calling and it may well be. But the scholarship sales tactics 18-year-old kids are subjected to (as mentioned in this entry) remind me of the ads on Cartoon Network.
Nonetheless, while you're within the system, I challenge you to act with self-integrity and remain true to your ideals. Fear not the loss of your job, but fear the loss of your soul.

By Agagooga
Really, there's no reason to call it a scholarship and throw on all the moral overtones. It's a business contract, pure and simple. Bond breakers? The more the merrier - they actually *make* money from bond breakers, so they just need to compensate by awarding more scholarships than they need..
..SPF scholar? No wonder your career is pre-determined. I, and many of the other PSC scholars I know, don't seem to have the same fate.
In fact, many PSC scholars leave when their bonds end because their careers do not progress. Many scholars I know have left at the level of "Manager", which in case you don't know, is the lowest rank in the gahmen.
We are but the chaff left behind after they select the "good" ones for the Admin service.
Many scholars are smart, driven and want to be challenged. The civil service, unfortunately, doesn't have the ability or the correct job scope to provide them with interesting jobs.
Many leave after their bonds end feeling like they've wasted 6-8 years of their life.

By Chuang Shyue Chou
"Most of the people who make the cut for scholarships tend to be from one mould alone." Well observed.

By randomonlooker
From weaving through the same academically "elite" circles and getting drunk at the same parties to charting the same career routes and holidaying in the same European hotspots during term break - let's not kid ourselves, the self-imposed insularity of some of these scholarship holders - not scholars; get your terms right, people - has always been pretty spectacular.
So many of them profess to despise the system, yet they should know better than anyone that it is this very system that has afforded them the attendant prerogatives they're enjoying, and of course most are unwilling to risk anything (god forbid having to fight for a $2k entry-level position with thousands of other fresh grads!) by shaking things up, even for a little bit.
"Radical English-educated young"? MM Lee's own wishful thinking - they want to be, but unfortunately they're not.
I think that a very good rule of thumb for anyone in authority in Singapore is: this current regime is not going to last forever. Whatever we do should be able to stand the test of natural justice whoever is in power next.

By Paul
MM Lee has made the point that his successors will have to deal with this accountability in the future and those in the middle tier of leadership will do well to heed his advice.

By kharma
Don't give up on changes. You can't change things when you try to be a smart alec just fresh from Univ. Your colleagues are scholars, so are your boss. What makes you so sure that your ideals on certain policies will be immediately enlightening - one that has not been thought of before & will benefit the whole of mankind?
What makes you think that your predecessor hasn't thought about the greater good of mankind, but decide on a less than perfect policy due to limitations?
Find a true inspiration in the top management. He or she will be your guiding light to see you through the cobwebs. Learn the system, assimilate the gems & understands the limitation. Know what other ministries are doing, what direction your ministry is striving to achieve, what is the helicopter picture, what is the relevance, what is the purpose, what is the impact, what is the consequences, what is your passion.
Do you really know what you want to do? If you do, but not really doing it, try to accumulate know-how's to make you indispensably the best choice for your next rotation. But don't play office politics.
If you appear stronger just because you put down everyone else, you win the battle but (will) lose the war. What goes round comes around. If you are unanimously the best candidate who can make a difference, you win respect, win kharma points & inspire a whole team of scholars whom you can mobilise to changing for the greater good.
Ask yourself what you can do to make that difference; doesn't have to be now; The respectable Gandhi didn't see the changes he wanted just after he graduated from college. Persevere, be purposeful.
Just don't give up. The world didn't change because someone gave up. The system didn't get better because someone gave up. You are in a better position than anyone to make the difference. Doesn't have to be now. Once you're in a position which can make a difference, unleash your vision, your directives, your passsion & your inspiration; Aspire to be the enlightened one who can inspire & managed the ideals of young scholars.
When you thoughts speak volume & commands the inspiration of generations of youthful passionate scholars, you finally see the reason why you didn't give up
If not you, who?
For full report visit
http://kitana.wordpress.com/2006/09/26/the-new-taboo/

Meanwhile at FindSingapore.net
Lai CF says,
An early 30+ something balless-wonder, who is a scholar, and fast-tracked into Superscale-G is EARNING S$17,500 per month tax-payers' money!!
And they wanted Singaporeans to be risk-takers, entrepreneurial.. blah..blah..
@#$%^&*&^%>, I will whip my children to study harder to earn a scholarship....@#$%^&@***@@.