It may not be enough to break down the data based on size of flat alone, for example, if 1-room and 2-room flats are occupied mostly by seniors living on their own or without their children. This may introduce some bias into the conclusions, if the aim is to monitor social mobility, because to do so we are primarily interested in households that have school- and university-going children.

Do not be too optimistic abt details on breakdown of scholars/household. Remember the debates abt naming bond breakers, white horse serving NS etc. The truth is out there but we are not going to get it. anyway we have been told before that it is not a bursary scheme but scholarship, so family background/income need not be factored into the selection process. I would acknowledge that the middle n upper class have the financial means to send their kids for premium tuition/enrichment programmes, so, education is no longer a level playing field.

One thing I never understood was why they gave a prestigious scholarship to Lee Hsien Loong’s son, when his family obviously has the means to support his overseas education. I’m not denying his academic and leadership qualifications, but I’m pretty sure there are students around with similar grades who need the scholarship more.

And Dan is right pretty much right that education is no longer, or perhaps, never a level playing field. I’m not suggesting that scholarships be a way of leveling this playing field, but it would certainly warm my heart if truly needy students got the financial support they badly require to pull themselves and their family out of their poor financial conditions.

From talking to fellow parents of children in both neighbourhood and “branded” schools, the following generalization may be drawn:

a) Most neighbourhood schools have a certain percentage of their pupils from homes needing financial assistance. This percentage is usually very small from “branded” schools.

b) Such pupils may not even have money for their recess time. Much as the schools try to get funds for these kids from various sources like Grassroots and ST Pocket Money funds, this is sometimes insufficient.

c) I believe school’s operating budget from MOE is based on headcount of pupils. (Anyone else with better knowledge on this may like to confirm this point.) If the school has to dip into this to help their poorer pupils, less will be available for the school to engage outside vendors for enrichment programmes.

d) Primary schools are restricted to how they can solicit for more funds for their school. Some enterprising principals get companies within their neighbourhood to “adopt” their school, making annual donations to the school. Besides, as such schools usually have less parents who are professionals, getting donations from this channel is also rather limited.

e) What pupils know about, they can talk about; what they can talk about, they will read and write about. So, exposure is key to a child’s education. But when resources are limited, both at home and in school, most neighbourhood school pupils are losing out on this aspect. Funds from Edusave, much as they are laudable, is not sufficient to have any meaningful impact, unfortunately. Vendors have to survive too.

f) Some middle income families place their children in neighbourhood primary schools because of proximity and convenience. Such children will have the benefit of home resources to augment and supplement what the school does. In return, poorer classmates of such pupils “indirectly benefit” from the exposure of such friends, from their interaction and classroom participation.

g) However, some of these kids will leave the school if selected for the Gifted Education program. In some cases, after having experienced a couple of years of “insufficient programmes to expose their kids” from neighbourhood schools, parents actively seek out “better” schools to transfer their children into.

h) Teachers and Principals can’t be blamed for the above situation. They are themselves already trying to keep their heads above water from the various initiatives / endless demands on their time, whenever they get a new Perm Sec / Minister / Mandarin….

Above is just a very layman observation of the vicious cycle our neighbourhood primary schools face. I am very sure many of you out there can identify with this.

The article misses a point about bond breakers. People break bonds not because they are richer but that by breaking the bond, they become richer.

I have yet to observe an instance where a person breaks a bond in order to suffer a loss.

It is a reflection of the difference in pay between the private sector and the public sector that the benefits of bond breaking far outweighs the cost.

To assume that just because a person comes from a poorer background, that person is less likely to break a bond is fallacious.

I would instead hypothesise that the only reason why there are fewer bond breakers from lower income families are precisely that fewer bonds are given to persons from lower income families.

Give more bonds to lower income families = more bond breakers from lower income families because that has very little to do with the rationale for bond breaking.

5) lim on August 12th, 2008 4.00 pm

sounds possible but it’s inconclusive without numbers showing whether bond breakers pay the bond out of their own pockets (parents etc…) or have their bonds paid for by the “poaching” organizations.

Actually, isn’t scholarships, in the Singapore context, awarded based on MERIT? If so, does the financial status of the recipient matters? The most talented should be awarded if it is the case.

On the other hand, if we are awarding bursaries with the objective of assisting those who can to further their education, it makes sense to ensure middle and lower income families get them.

We should not confuse the objective of the awards.

When you have 50 or more students, all with X number of straight As and a sterling ECA record, its quite subjective to say number 1 is better than number 50 in terms of MERIT. Whilst the selection may look objective, in reality, it is anything but.

Singapore Scholarships are not scholarships by true definition because:

1) They force youngsters to strain themselves to work for it. Those who don’t get the 4As 2/3S are left to fend for themselves

2) The careate market distortion by reducing frictional employment for those few hundred, but leaving hundred thousand other non scholarships worrying about how to get a job

3) They are awarded to anyone, even the rich. The system should consider the wealth of the student’s family

4) They force students into certain courses due to the time period of the scholarship. Students goign to the US will “accelerate” themselves to finish the degree in 3 years not the American 4 because the scholarship covers only 4 years

5) Students mainly study to Masters level. No one thinks of PhDs.

6) Lucky SAFOS kids get to miss OCS/NS and reduce platoon sizes. Non Scholars waste two good years.

7) And as mentioned in another post, is the 19 year old Singaporean as clever as the 21//22 year old Western Student? the later with no such scholarship has to finish university first before getting a job.
Reply With Quote

I understand that some are breaking their bonds even before they finish their studies.

As the amount involved is typically a few hundred thousand dollars, most bond-breakers may not be paid by their new employers.

To my understanding there are 2 kinds of scholarships:
1. Based on earning capacity of students’ parents/guardians
2. Based on excellent results in academic and non-academic subjects

I believe the one Sze Hian refers to is that of #1.

If I am living in an executive flat that belongs to my sister and I am jobless due to a terminal illness, that doesn’t mean I am as rich as the house-owner. I have no idea why the government wants to collect such statistics which have no direct relationship to the amount nor number of scholarships that have been awarded to Singaporeans. All they really needed to stick to is a BUDGET!

On top of this, there are families with more than one child having scholarships but statistics may have been calculated in such a way that these 2 children are from 2 families and thus, 2 houses.

Forthe MATHS, I am seeing stars alright!!

Nothing is gained from “inaccurate information”. The only reason I see from such collection of statistics is that the government wants to see whether there’s more application of scholarships from those who live “4-room flat and below” and “5-room flat and above”. Case of kaypo-lticism? hehe

Let me share my experience. My eldest gal applied and attended a few scholarship interviews last year. The feedback I got was that it was based not only on academic as well as participation in CCA /community work, but also on series of interviews and team events to draw out the best. In deciding the one scholarship it has to make, one bank chose a student from a more financially challenged home over my daughter. My daughter was satisfied with the explanation as she knows that the other student needs it more than her. But one question normally asked is the purpose of scholarship ? Or should it be called a bursary, rather than scholarship? Scholarship, to me, is given to the best of the bests, irrespective of income level. My gal later received the Lee Kong Chian scholarship which is bond-free but expects its scholars to be active in community work, not only in Sgp but also in third world countries. Scholars are also advised to integrate into the student community and not think of themselves as being more superior than the others. Essentially, they are taught to serve and help with the lesser privileged in the society. At end of day, it is the sponsors who must have its objectives clear for its scholars. Also scholars must have the integrity, and this, I believe, comes from his/her upbringing as well as the schools he/she comes from. I credit Pei Chun Public School, Nanyang Girls High as well as Hwa Chong JC for the values she picked up.

In my opinion:

1. The objective of scholarships is to secure and train prospective employees for the organization. Therefore, the selection criteria should be based on merits and qualities the organization is looking for, but not financial necessity of the applicant. [Like what #2 Dan, #7 CJ have said]

2. The objective of bursaries, on the other hand, is to provide financial aids, and so this, not scholarships, should be the primary avenue of channeling monetary assistant to the poor.

3. Even if it turns out that students from richer families are indeed better educated, I do not support awarding scholarships based on financial need, i.e giving more scholarships to the poor. Instead, more bursaries should be given, and more sponsorship should be awarded to make expensive ECA/CCA affordable to the poor.

4. In this way, breaking bonds only impacts the employers and people who want the scholarship, not people who need financial support. Furthermore, by keeping scholarships and bursaries separate, the intended purposes are kept clear.

5. To be more precise, I would like categorise students into 3 groups: rich, poor, and weak; not just rich and poor.

6. A fair education system, in my view, offer opportunities based on merits, gives financial aids for poor students, and provides more teaching resources to weak students (regardless rich or poor).

7. For eg, admission to schools and universities, and selection of scholarships holders should be based only on achievements (whether academic or not), but not on affluency. The rich can’t apply for bursaries. Poor students can apply for both scholarships and bursaries, and if awarded both, they can choose the better deal. Weak pupils (rich or poor) get into smaller classes and have more tuition.

[...] Daily Discourse – Endoh’s Dungeon: Why shouldn’t Singaporeans be prepared for natural disasters? – the boy who knew too much: The true nature of Singapore’s bilingualism – TOC: Seeing stars: Uniquely S’pore – Equality [...]

Points 5 , 6 and 7 @ Ben are good proposals.

Point 5 is a little tricky …..what yardstick to categorise a student as “poor” ?

Point 6 is a little tricky…..what yardstick to categorise as “weak” ? Example, is a C or D considered weak ?……… depending on which school one goes to.
I would also include sports as mandatory except those who are handicapped, and other CCA as well.

Point 7 is a little tricky….does academic and CCA grades alone define our idea of a scholar ? How about having testimonials from classmates, teachers and the principal ? There are just so many students with straight As and I wonder if most are only exam-smart.

I like the idea of a bursary or scholarship for poor students as suggested by Ben.

Why this year president scholarship only 1 from hdb homes?

why children born into landed homes or semi-d need scholarship?

Only one from HDB got selected for President scholarship because :
a) parents are grass-root members of the PAP
b) parents proven to be voters for the PAP
c) recipient is member of YPAP
d) all other applicants are suspected to be opposition supporters, sympathizers.
e) all of the above….lol

Children born into landed homes or semi-d need scholarship because it will give opportunities for a fast-track career in some govt agencies.
A job is guaranteed for scholarship holders !

> why children born into landed homes or semi-d need scholarship?

The purpose of a scholarship is not to provide financial aid to needy students. Scholarships are either (a) prizes awarded based on merit or (b) contracts to secure and train prospective employees for the organization.

For example, the prizes that are awarded to the top academic student, best sports person, best artwork, or best essay, without any strings attached. Family affluence should not be considered.

Another example is an agreement in which the organization sponsors a person for training, and in return, the person works for the company or the community upon graduation. The organization selects candidates based on merits whether academic or not. Family affluence, again, should not have any bearing.

However, the purpose of bursaries is specifically to provide financial aid. Here, affluence has everything to do with eligibility, i.e. the rich should not be able to apply for it. Bursaries are what I strongly advocate to be provided for the needy.

Residency of students is not an indication of his/her family’s actual wealth. So I was a little perplexed why the govt is collecting statistics on such info. Unless it is for a good purpose (may be someone can tell me), I see it as a waste of time for administrative and research work, etc.

The definition of scholarships/bursaries have been blurred (unfortunately) – Ben’s definition of “scholarship” and “bursaries” is more accurate.

Usually those who receive scholarships (or more accurately described by Ben as “bursaries”) due to family’s low income//poverty are not required to attend interviews; they only need to provide prove that they are for example, single parents with low income or families with hardships, etc.

The Singapore Bhuddist Lodge is one such charity that helps needy students simply because students are deserving of an education no matter what the parents’ problems may be, provided students are willing to work hard etc.

Scholarships that require excellent academic and non-academic results along with good character and moral values are those that do not necessarily look at where students live. Those kind of scholarships will call for face-to-face interview/s with parents or the students (or both), but that is NOT to ascertain or confirm if the student is born into, or if student is currently living in landed properties.

@ Landlord All that you said is true except not necessarily for this “Children born into landed homes or semi-d need scholarship because it will give opportunities for a fast-track career in some govt agencies. “.

Scholarships in the ‘class’ of Presidents’ scholarships do not place high priority for those born into or currently live in landed properties. Statisticians sometimes forget what you’re born with may not be what you have now. A good example will be Paris Hilton’s future children/descendants.

>>>>Quoted by Ben: However, the purpose of bursaries is specifically to provide financial aid. Here, affluence has everything to do with eligibility, i.e. the rich should not be able to apply for it. Bursaries are what I strongly advocate to be provided for the needy.

I strongly agree but somehow I feel the government is using the wrong way to ascertain the eligibility. Why? Because poor/needy families can still be living in a landed property because of the charity and kindness of the property-owner. I know it’s rare but it’s possible. If I live with a wealthy relative, it does not mean that relative is supporting me to raise my children for example.

A little off-topic here: There are many poor whose relatives do not help them (I am not about to say whether they deserve it due to past behaviour or family conflicts).

One way government CAN help is to make support by FAMILY or RELATIVES mandatory but this is a double-edged sword – do people want to be responsible for their relatives’ unfortunate circumstances or would they view it as clearing someone else’s shit?

There are also many poor people above 55/60 whose children has NEVER supported them. 11 children, 1 dead, 2 live with them and the other 8 act like complete strangers. Those senior citizens have not had the heart to sue their children for monetary support even if the current law allows. Tell me if you feel something is wrong here. What can be done?

>>>>>Re-quote: Scholarships that require excellent academic and non-academic results along with good character and moral values are those that do not necessarily look at where students live. Those kind of scholarships will call for face-to-face interview/s with parents or the students (or both), but that is NOT to ascertain or confirm if the student is born into, or if student is currently living in landed properties.

Those interviews are to ascertain if you are really what the documents say you are. For example a student of excellent English and who’s produced straight As in other subjects as well, will not speak broken English during the interview.

Sorry for topic diversion, but I think Sze Hian was talking about scholarships that is given to the poor; I don’t think he’s not talking about scholarships given to those who’ve produced excellent acedemic results.

I was told by a friend that her colleague’s son was dropped out of Learning Lab – a high flying enrichment centre that takes students from RGS , RI , ACS etc becos he was not “suited” to their program – read he was not catching up with is fellow course mates. The mother was annoyed and said the reason why he needed tuition was because he needed help wit his work. But I understand the Learning Lab was not a “tuition” centre helping the academically weak. It’s an enrichment centre for the smart to be even “smarter” – to give them the edge for those important exams ! It boggles the mind but I always thought that if you are truly a bright n gifted student , you don’t need enrichment. But is that really true? Don’t the extra tips / skills gained from these high level (and expensive) enrichment centres give the children of more affluent parents a leg up ?

to clarify , by “dropped out of” above , I meant “asked to leave “

My feeling is that scholarship awards are made somewhat subjectively with some political and strategic objectives – we just have to trust the system for now.

However there should be the beginning of some transparency so that citizens are able to accept the statistics when they are finally revealed.
By the way, recent statistics can suggest that top scholarships are going to the female gender with a mix of foreigners – interesting to suggest rightly or wrongly that it may be difficult to deal with local NS men who are getting vocal to the point of challenging the system

In some western countries – university places and scholarships are allocated to minorities – and the definition of minorities is not based on race but on many other factors like location of birthplace, father’s occupation, etc…..
In other area involving foreigners , award of scholarships are based on a strict quota – locals are given the places first, then the quota for foreigners are filled up – there is a policy and consistency.

As Singapore open up, much spotlight will be placed on university places and scholarship awards; questions will always be there once the system is not transparent.

Look at the previous debate on foreign sports talents – have Singaporean accepted them yet ? The controversies involving sports talents disappearing half way thru their “scholarships here” are still fresh in people’s mind. Sometimes it make one wonder if Singapore has got its priorities right ? Have the investments paid ? How are the foreign imports doing – can they win a medal at Beijing after failing in Sydney and Athens?
The focus now should be on the economic slowtown, solving problems of inflation, cost of living and really helping the poor and the old who cannot cope; yet on tv and news, one can find the President and Minister enjoying the Beijing Games ! What insensitivities to show at such an uncertain and difficult times with the admitted bumpy road ahead for Singapore.

Will Singaporeans believe that there is really a level playing field in the awards of scholarships ?
Openness is the key. Courage to face the people, and not to hide behind the non answering system is a must henceforth if the people and government are to move on to close the diversive gap. Civil servants are well paid, Goverment are voted in – the system must be accountable, perform and show results or be shipped out.

@Level_playing_field! The enrichment centre you mentioned definitely DIDN’T think of a smarter way to assess srudents, did they?

Given their criteria, if Bill gates went to the Learning Lab BEFORE he made Microsoft, they would have rejected him outright too.

So do not be perturbed by educational institutes/enrichment centres who want to choose the people/students they want to teach. Such institutes have politics all of their own. They may miss out on students who could have been the next potential Einstein (Einstein was called STUPID by his teachers! NO KIDDING!)

I suggest to give your “business” to those who are willing to take your children’s education “more sincerely”. This “rejection” was anything but a kind one. I’d be interested to see what contract they had with your colleague!

errata: students! >,<

Many questioned the fairness in awarding government scholarships to students from private homes and HDB. In other words, it is questioning the criteria of awarding scholarships based on meritocracy.

If so, then perhaps we should also question the fact that some racial groups are over represented while some are very much under represented!

Do we want to go into such matters?

There must be a distinction between Bursaries and Scholarships.

>>>>Quoted by (#27) Sobri: There must be a distinction between Bursaries and Scholarships.

Yep Sobri, the local govt did not distinguish these 2.

I re-read Sze Hian’s article. >, referring to those whose scholarships were given for outstanding students with good character.

If it’s realised that a certain race is more poor than other races (according to who applied for the bursaries), then collecting such statistics is useful in determining WHAT lifestyle habits/choices may be causing poverty for that race.

Currentlly what the government are collecting (place of residency of those awarded bursaries) is effective only to a certain degree.

I am only commenting on this from a statistical perspective. I think the article is spot on.
The potential of drawing inferences to tell a difference story is substantial.
Besides, lumping data into hdb ”vs” non-hdb categories (with limited granularity) dulls the richness of any statistical analyses.
I am quite sure the data could be provided with finer details. Ask any statistician or decision maker well versed with analyses. Inadequacies in drawing sound (or sometimes even true) conclusions are there if the details are not provided.

KF I agree with you except that the finer details may not be accurate already. If the wrong kind of details are used to assess the situations of beneficiaries (bursary/scholarships), then the results will also give a wrong analysis. Wrong analysis may lead to suggestion of implementing policies/laws that DO NOT help.

We’ll just have to make do with what is there now. Regardless of the analysis by statisticians, it does not change/help those who’ve applied for bursaries – they are still poor!

P.S. Bursaries or financial aids are only temporary measures to help the poor, one cannot rely on them longterm. Even those who are receiving food rations, they have to keep applying and re-applying for food rations once expiry date is close. What most would do is ‘ride a cow first to ride a horse later’.

[...] disasters? – the boy who knew too much: The true nature of Singapore’s bilingualism – TOC: Seeing stars: Uniquely S’pore – Equality – Sgpolitics: Cherian George’s article on tolerating political diversity – Article 14: General [...]

kelly, I am not disputing the fact that there are finer details which are already inaccurate. In the business world, (especially organisations who take information seriously), the integrity of the records must be treated with rigour (of which accuracy is a subset). Back to the the data provided, well, how much emphasis the parties collecting the records place on record integrity is an indication of how serious the relevant parties are in using them for decision making at country wide level….. Here, we are talking about funds with millions in magnitude.

Means test should be one of the criteria when awarding scholarship to deserving students so the poor whose academic records just make it to the list but not the best and good enough to merit some help. The problem the rich see scholarship as a prestige and some kind of feat. They want their children’s name etched out on the school’s scholars’ varnished ply wood board so they can howlian.
I know of a president’s scholar who declined scholarship award for his children because he could afford for them and he wanted others who might not afford to be given a chance. He himself was from a poor family and he understood how much a scholarship meant to the poor. But not many are like him unfortunately.
The most despicable are the bond breakers who are normally from rich family.I think they should not be allowed to get away with it.

It could even be argued that in some circumstances, (such as the award of scholarships for government jobs), being from a wealthier background is a distinct disadvantage in the context of that job. It might be more difficult for kids from wealthier backgrounds, who’ve always been to elite institutions, to emphathize with the general public in the making or implementing of public policy.

NDP Rally Speech only touches on the subject of Baby Bonus. How about the issue of elitism in Singapore? How do we know that all these scholarship holders from the rich had really done well in their studies? There should be collected datas to prove that those who obtained a scholarship had indeed done well academically & active in social works (just making a monetary donation should not be counted). Bond-breakers should have their citizenship revoke.

help me i need a financial support