President Scholarships

I refer to “ Four Rafflesians win President’s scholarship.” (ST 29 July).

I was not surprised that the four President scholars were all Raffelsians. However, I was more struck by the fact that “all four come from comfortable background – none of them live in HDB flats.”

In Singapore where more than 85% of the population lives in HDB flats, not living in HDB flats is a reasonable proxy for higher income and wealth level. It will be reasonable to deduce that the four President scholars come from upper middle to high-income families.

I believe it is easier to accomplish many things if one do not have to work to help support the families during his or her studies. For example, how much time can you be expected to spend on your studies if you have to work after school to tend the family business, much less spending your time on extra-curricular activities? Furthermore, many lower income families may not be able to afford private tuition and enrichment classes for their children.

Are having all four of our President scholars coming from comfortable background a result of our merit-based education system? If I am not wrong, I believe a disproportional number of PSC scholars do not live in HDB flats, as compared to the general population.

I am not diminishing the four President scholars’ nor other PSC scholars’ accomplishment. However, can more students from a less comfortable background, living in HDB flats, meet the criteria to be awarded the President scholarship in the future?

The more important question is: Is there sufficient social mobility in our rapidly changing society?

Are our Government Buildings too Posh?

I refer to the letter "When Posh is Perfect" by Mr. Krishna M. Singh (May 17). Mr. Singh is using the example of the government offices of the 70s and 80s, while Mr. Tan Soo Khoon is talking about the government offices of the 21st century.

I fully agree that our government buildings should not be an eyesore, and provide a certain level of comfort to the civil servants.

However, from my limited experiences interviewing for positions in the public and private sectors, I was surprised to find that the interiors of a number of our government buildings are more posh than those from the top notch MNCs in Singapore.

I believe the companies are more interested in managing their cost structure than making their offices look too posh. Shareholders will be breathing down their necks if they realized the management is spending unnecessary amount of money on their offices.

After my interviews, I will have lunch at the coffee shop where an old lady will be clearing the plates.

I feel uncomfortable and wondered if the government can justify raising the GST to this old lady, while the interiors of our government buildings are as posh as some of the world class hotels.

Rethink the scholarship system

The recent articles on the difficulty in obtaining overseas scholarships sent me thinking whether the scholarship system in Singapore is still relevant in this global economy, where top talents are globally mobile.

I wonder how many of these 18 years old know the myriad of opportunities and the excellent compensation they may received when they graduated with from the top overseas universities.

An example is that top tier global investment banks and management consulting firms normally hire graduates from the top overseas universities, and they pay global rates. Therefore, an overseas Singaporean graduate working in these companies, even in Singapore, can easily start with a monthly compensation of $6000 and above, which is more than twice the monthly compensation of most bonded scholars.

Will the scholarship applicants whom can afford to pay for their overseas education still applied and take up the overseas scholarships if they know this?

Unless these financially able applicants at the age of 18 or 21 are sure that they want to work in the particular organization they applied for, obtaining an overseas scholarship may not be the best option.

Madam Tay Lai Cheng, principal of Temasek Junior College, echoes my concerns. In the frenzy of applying for all these overseas scholarships, these students must understand that these overseas scholarships are tied to the organizations, and they have to return to serve their bonds of four to six years.

Maybe it is time we should rethink the scholarship system. Are we also bonding too many of our talents?

I will like to see commercial overseas study loans, guaranteed by the Government, being made available for our qualified but financially strapped Singaporean students to study in the best overseas universities.

Is imposing a racial quota on schools an effective way to achieve racial integration?

I feel that imposing a racial quota on schools is a band-aid solution to the lack of racial integration within our schools.

First, I am not sure whether the enforcement of racial quota in public schools is constitutional? Can the Ministry of Education enforce a policy that states whether a citizen (student) is allowed to enter a particular school based solely on his or her race, due to the race quota?

Second, has there been empirical evidences showing greater racial integration ever since the imposition of the HDB race quota? Have Malay, Indian and Chinese families been interacting cross-racially more with one another after 1989 within their HDB blocks? Will we have more cross-racial interaction within schools if the racial quota is enforced?

Third, we need to determine who are the beneficiaries and losers from the enforceable of the racial quota in schools? On the surface, it appears that the minorities' students will benefit from the racial quota. However, imposition a racial quota distorts our meritocracy based public education system. I will argue that targeted programs should be developed to assist the academically weaker students, regardless of the students' race.

Fourth, is the enforcement of the race quota used to expedite racial integration, or to improve on the school's overall academic performance? Both objectives are of a different nature, and it is important to apply the most relevant solution to the respective issues.

I think Singapore should have more matured and honest conversations within the public and private spheres on race. It is important to recognize that we are not in the 1960s, and that Singaporeans are now more educated, with a greater awareness of how race can easily divide society, by looking at other countries.

No doubt the race riots in the 1950s and 60s are still fresh in our country' s short history, but I will argue that bad speeches and ideas on race should not be indiscriminately muted, but been countered by better speeches and ideas on race within our society.

More importantly, I hope that we will have faith that as Singaporeans, we will be able to be face the recent onslaught of race-related issues that threaten our social stability with honesty, maturity and humility, regardless of our ethnicities.

Disclosure should be applauded

The disclosure by S. Dhanabalan on the decision process to appoint Ho Ching as the executive director of Temasek Holdings is an excellent step forward in better governmental transparency and openness.

Discerning Singaporeans and international investors will be questioning the possible conflict of interests, and political sensitivity of appointing Ho Ching, who is the wife of DPM Lee Hsien Loong, to be executive director of Temasek Holdings.

However, by addressing these concerns in public, Temasek Holdings should be applauded for this positive step.

The government should continue to strive for greater transparency and accountability to the people, to show that it will continue to remain as one of the most corruption free government in the world. Therefore, we should continue to have these disclosures.