Breaking the bondage

Bond Breaking: A definition: The issue that has managed to take priority over the annual budget in Parliament and got MPs up in arms is bond breaking. When a particular company sponsors a prospective student for a scholarship, he or she is required to sign a contract that "bonds" the scholar to work for the company for the stipulated number of years. A bond breaker is one who declines to work for his sponsor company, but instead pays back the equivalent of the amount which was put up to send him / her abroad. On Friday Feb 27, the names of 3 bond-breakers from EDB and NCB appeared in the newspapers, despite the fact that they had paid off their bonds. Why did EDB and NCB do it? Allegedly not to shame them, but to make the point that they should return to Singapore and serve their bonds.

There are many reasons why people take up scholarships. One reason may be out of sheer necessity. However as society becomes more affluent, the reasons become more based on prestige. The opportunities offered to scholars by their sponsors often lead to promotions, a higher starting pay and a career which is more or less mapped out. Then again, one need not necessarily be a scholar for all this to take place, one merely needs a healthy dose of tenacity and a brain. The fact also that your classmate might be the CEO of his own private multi-million dollar business at 25, while the scholar may still be serving out his bond, does take quite a bit out of the sheen of being a scholar.

Reasons for Bond Breaking: For most bond breakers, various external factors come into play, take job satisfaction or working conditions, for example. Then there are others who experience a change in their interests and want to switch career paths. They claim that at 18, one is too young to choose a career.

Arguably, being 18 does connote a certain sense of naivete. Many a misguided youth can claim immaturity as justification for breaking their bond. However we know for a fact, that people at all ages can change or develop other interests. Public shaming may be a rather harsh way to punish a basically very human tendency. Foo Chin, 25, was a PSC Local Merit Bursary (Civil Defence) recipient in his time to do computer engineering in NTU. He broke his bond with the Civil Defence after one and a half years to pursue a more worthwhile career in IT. "I broke my bond because of my personal interests in computers. Inside the Civil Defence, my job nature was more on leading a fire-fighting team to fight fires and counselling my subordinates. There was also tons of administrative work." He finds his present job "very enjoyable" because he is given a chance to pursue his true interests.

An (In)Effective Deterrent? Others like Shannon Tan, 19, a potential scholar have more reservations. She states that taking up a scholarship would be a "very serious decision to make. I would never go into it blindly." After all, the thought of having one's face pasted all over the newspapers is hardly an appealing thought. It seems however, that even the stigma of bad publicity may not be effective enough in keeping people from their passions. When asked if he would break his bond even if it meant having his name published, Foo Chin replied seriously, "For my career and interests, I would." Perhaps he has the advantage of looking on hindsight whilst many potential scholars have not yet experienced the real drudgery of slaving away at a job they have no interest in.

The EDB and NCB made a public spectacle of their three bond breakers with the sole intention of deterring others from doing the same. Knowing the size of Singapore and the typically Asian value of pride or "face", they must have been able to predict the enormity of public reaction, be it favourable or not. Their actions, however, have come under fire of not just esteemed Members of Parliament, but members of the public as well. Gilbert Tan, 24, is of the opinion that "the three men were made scapegoats". He seriously doubts that such an action will be blown to such gargantuan proportions in future. After all, the public is renown for having a short memory, and an even shorter attention span.

Bond Breaking: Does it pay? Bearing this in mind, the employment opportunities of the three bond breakers would likely remain largely unaffected. BG Lee's rather threatening speech in Parliament that they would look carefully at the applicant's history might still ring true for governmental institutions. However in the rat race of the private sector, success mainly depends on how capable one is. And for these 3 men to compete, endure the grueling selection process of the EDB and NCB and secure themselves one of the most prestigious scholarships, rest assured, they are definitely not the usual run-on-the-mill, vegetated specimens who study 20 hours a day. These men are bright, promising young individuals.

However, "being the typical kiasu society that we are, there'll be companies in Singapore that will shun these three, thereby decreasing their chances of employment," says Lawrence Leong, 29, who works in the food industry. Furthermore, certain companies may shy away from employing people who have broken their contracts i.e. scholarship bonds, since they might be of the mindset that the bond breakers would not think twice about breaking their contracts with their company either.

Bond Breaking And The Law:The dictionary defines contract as a formal, written agreement between two parties which says that one of them will supply goods or services in an agreed way for the contracted sum of money. The dictionary, the EDB and the NCB all have something in common--they all fail to mention the supposed moral obligation in their contracts. Of course however, the EDB and NCB having the power of speech, suddenly alludes to the implied moral responsibility to work with the sponsor after graduation, in their press statement regarding bond breaking.

We examined an example of a bond contract and it resembles this. "The Student and the Sureties jointly and severally for himself and themselves and their respective personal representatives covenant to pay to the government the sum specified in the Third schedule hereto as liquidated damages and not as a penalty if the student ..." A lengthy list of acceptable reasons which could result in bond breaking follows. Therefore, according to this, the contract is merely a contract, no moral strings attached. A legal document. Nothing more.

Another argument supporting bond breaking as immoral would be that taking a scholarship then breaking one's bond would deprive other more needy applicants of the scholarship. Janet Leong, 19, who is waiting to enter university, disagrees. "Most scholarships are given based on merit. If a particular year happens to have particularly outstanding candidates, then corporations would be almost compelled to give away more scholarships. Just like there is no quota to how many people get accepted into university, there is no quota of scholarships either." Janet herself is applying for 4 scholarships.

Whether there should or should not be an escape clause, or whether moral obligation should or should not be attached to scholarships could be debated from two different perspectives. Perhaps the most balanced view comes from Stefan Vaz, 31, who asks the thought provoking question, "How much sacrifice does one have to make to 'honour' this obligation?" He refers to the case of Hector Yee, who broke his bond with NCB to pursue another 2 years at Cornell studying under a distinguished professor with all expenses paid.

"Singapore is way, way down on the list for scientific research. You weigh that against coming back here and going into a normal job that will tie you down for 8 years. Some people ask why not go later? By then, your ship would have come and gone. So, what is it that people are essentially asking him to do? Basically, sacrifice a bright future for the sake of honour and country," Stefan adds. He also asks rhetorically, "I wonder how many of us, including the self-righteous politicians would be up to the mark if they were put in his shoes?"

Consequences:The impact of the furore created by the issue of bond breaking could see scholars considering more carefully before signing years of the life away on that dotted line. Michael Khor says that sponsors of scholarships can also be "more careful, creative and proactive. They would have to attract the right person to join the company, not just judge them by the number of distinctions he's got and a cursory interview". The difficult part is discerning one's character from scant information and a brief encounter. But until integrity and morality can be determined from simple multiple choice tests, sponsors will just have to trust their instincts.

Since this issue of bond breaking has erupted, the public has been divided into different camps--boycotters of EDB, champions of Hector Yee, moralists, to name a few. As with everything, a middle ground can be reached regarding this issue, avoiding the typical generalisations that we are so used to passing. No, not all bond breakers are immoral covenant violaters, neither is NCB the equivalent of Hades. At the end of the day, before we cast the first stone, consider the options Hector had. He made his choice. Mr Philip Yeo made his. We all make choices and we live with them. Hopefully, they're the right ones.

Just a thought:

It is time, we focus on a more important issue rather than giving specific cases and reasons why scholars should serve or break their bonds.

One ought to perhaps re-examine the selection process and the terms of conditions. Especially more so, if there are more attractive alternatives around. We should perhaps concentrate on the problem and find ways to improve the statistics rather than through a public outcry.

Finally, if we examine closely, we will find that a true scholarship are without bonds nor contract, they are awarded for intellectual excellent and rewarded for the passion and pursuit of knowledge.

Scholarship with bonds such as those awarded locally, have contracts or bonds, they are not free for nothing.