Unanswered questions in scholarship debate

DEPUTY Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's message was that government scholarships carry a moral obligation to serve the country, especially a small one like Singapore that needs all the talent it can get.

For some time to come, his statement will set the tone for the way the public views moral integrity and the meaning of a bond.

This much is clear, but the episode leaves some questions unanswered.

DPM Lee said there must be no blanket condemnation of bond-breakers, but each case must be judged on its merits.

But what exactly are the grounds for an acceptable parting between sponsor and scholar? Can the exceptional circumstances be spelt out more clearly?

The scores of scholarship hopefuls making up their minds now will wonder if other organisations, especially the Public Service Commission, will also start shaming bond-breakers.

Given that public memory is short and the first batch of any kind of offenders usually gets hit hardest, what will the Economic Development Board do to formalise this process of public shaming?

Will it, like the US, which DPM Lee said, recently named health-care professionals who defaulted on education loans, also start an Internet web site for a permanent hall of shame?

To some observers, the matter has left a somewhat sour taste in the mouth, because it makes everyone involved, including EDB chairman Philip Yeo, Mr Chng Hee Kok (East Coast GRC) and former National Computer Board scholar Hector Yee, look bad.

Did the exchange between Mr Yeo and Mr Chng have to be brought out into the open and dealt with this way, with confidential department notes publicised in a ministerial statement?

Why did Mr Chng have to mention it in parliament? Was any action taken after he complained to DPM Lee about the way he was treated at the Jan 19 EDB breakfast meeting? Could the issue have been settled outside the House?

Was Hector Yee's permission sought to release his e-mail message to the NCB, which made him seem arrogant in seeing himself working "to benefit all humanity, not any one organisation or group of people" by going for a PhD on his own?

Is Mr Yee's choice, despite NCB's warnings about public humiliation, a symptom of a deeper clash between self and society? Society tells its young to "be the best that you can be", yet in the next breath it appears to curb his dream to become, if not the next Einstein, then at least the next Bill Gates or Sim Wong Hoo.

At the next level, bond-breaking also brings family into conflict with society, since no teenager can act to get a scholarship only for the prestige, or not to come back to a government job, without his parents agreeing to pay the liquidated damages.

People are told repeatedly that the family is the basic building block of society, but for most, whether to go with family or to serve society is obvious when it comes to the crunch.

Answering a question from Nominated MP Simon Tay about whether there was a blacklist of bond-breakers, DPM Lee said it was only natural that government agencies share information on job applicants with such backgrounds.

Having come out with a strong and clear stand against scholars who choose not to fulfil their obligations, the government is more likely to adopt a firmer stance.

Whether this amounts at least to an informal blacklist, the signal given suggests a potential problem.

Most people can probably accept the intellectual arguments against condoning bond-breaking, and few are likely to find themselves in such a position.

But emotionally, this episode may be remembered as another case of the hapless individual versus the system, in which the latter came out looking somewhat heavy-handed, when it should, as Mr Leong Horn Kee (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) said, show a "lighter touch".

If one accepts Education Minister Teo Chee Hean's analogy that a brick supplier who breaks a promise to deliver goods is irresponsible and untrustworthy, then this principle should apply all the more to the public sector.

If even commercial contracts carry an obligation, then what about public office-holders who, for personal or other reasons, have to step down mid-term? Would they not be letting down those who voted for them?

The answer to this question takes one back to the need to allow for special circumstances for breaking bonds signed by bright-eyed 18-year-olds who may not have thought hard enough about life beyond graduation.

By all means name bond-breakers, but be fair, careful and humane. It is sad that this exchange has had to happen, but the future of scholarships will not look so tainted if one bears in mind this most important caveat.

Published in the Straits Times. March 12, 1998