
At a recent interview, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew made a comment on how local scholarships were losing their lustre. He highlighted the fact that talented individuals were unwilling to accept the scholarships and contribute to Singapore’s public sector after their education. In response to this comment and the announcement of 2007’s Presidents Scholars, the Strait Times offered a critical view of our scholarship programme on August 17.
This report had caught my attention as it was informative. It reported on the psychological mindsets of Presidents Scholars. In addition, I have long aspired to be a PSC scholar (doing medicine at Ivy League Universities) and thus this article was highly enlightening. However, the most informative article was this: “the return of the original bond breaker.” The arguments in the article are highly thought-provoking.
Now, the main argument that he raised was that the Presidents Scholarships were highly limiting as it has a bond attached as a condition. Talents were forced to return to Singapore to serve in the public sector and could not “become trailblazers in the field of his interest.” This argument is highly valid and addresses one of the fundamental problems of the Singapore scholarship system. Talented Presidents Scholars are deprived of a chance to make a name in the private sector due to the bond condition. Being restricted to the public sector, these promising scholars are unable to realize their potential and make the most out of their intelligence. Their contribution to the welfare of Singapore is thus undermined.
However, from the government standpoint, it is understandable that bonds are attached to the prestigious scholarships. The purpose of the scholarship programme is to provide a good education to the country’s talents and more importantly, recruit them into the country’s public sector. Thus these bonds are formal agreements to guarantee the return of the highly educated talents to the country’s administration. This is essential for the country; without these bonds, there is a high risk that the scholars could forsake their nations for better opportunities elsewhere.
To rebuke this point, the author argues that the government must take a risk. He reassures the government that most of the scholars will return as they have a strong “inner compass.” This is because these scholars had their values and characters instilled in Singapore and are bound to have a strong sense of love and duty for their country. Thus, they will return and make contributions in whatever possible ways.
I agree with this statement. For me, although opportunities elsewhere are alluring, I am deeply rooted to this country. This is the place that understands me, my culture and my personality. This is the place where I had grown up in and I feel comfortable here. In addition, most of my relatives live in Singapore and this place would forever burn with the warmth of kinship and love. In contrast, despite the higher quality of life overseas, it is not my homeland. Therefore, there is always a part of me which fails to accept the foreign way of life.
Despite the hardships, Singapore is where I belong. I believe that this is what most Singaporeans would feel. Thus, there is some logic in the argument that the government should rest assured that its “un-bonded” scholars would return to contribute to our development.



