So let me get this straight:

What Eddie Teo is trying to say is that people with money and who can afford tertiary education should also receive scholarships? That we shouldnt “discriminate” them?

I see this as the govt using scholarships as a way to tie talent (even those with money who can study anywhere in the world) with GLCs and the civil service.

No, he’s saying that we shouldn’t give scholarships to the plebians just because they are poor or a minority race. Instead, the scholarships shoud be given to those who have acquired the best results, not to those who need it most. That is PAP-style meritocracy.

Ceteris Paribus, meritocracy as a system is great but we’re in Singapore, a country where the income gap is huge. Obviously, coming from a well-off background will go a long way in helping a kid attain academic success.

For example,

Miss Wee Ivory Towers comes from a rich family, her father a board member of a company. When she’s just a toddler, she is sent to a “branded” learning centre (Montessori, Shichida, Julia Gabriel) to help her development. At home, her parents, being well-educated and knowing the importance of early childhood education, help to stimulate her cognizant abilities. At the age of 6, Miss Wee continues her extra lessons in these centres (Julia Gabriel, Learning Lab) until she finishes PSLE.

Let’s now look at Mr Wretched Wee. Mr Wee is born into a family of petit bourgeois. He grows up like any typical toddler, playing and having fun, enrolling in a PAP kindergarten. His parents, struggling to make a living on this pathetic island, do not have the money and time to aid in his childhood development. In primary school, Mr Wee is forced to take tuition. However, he is enrolled in a “neighbourhood” tuition centre, unlike Miss Wee who is in an elite one.

I’m sure by now it’s easy for readers to ascertain who will have a headstart in terms of educational development.

Even the PSC dudes acknowledge that those from more well-off families will take up an improprotionate percentage of the scholarships given out.

http://www.pscscholarships.gov.sg/COMMON/MEDIA+RESPONSE+ON+9+SEPTEMBER+2008.htm

So fellow Singaporeans, our beloved government is telling you straight in the face that it’s too bad that you are poor. So are you going to accept this crap or exercise that vote? I await your answers this coming election.

The top students coming from wealthy families are not the brightest in Singapore. All of them had access to the best teachers, books, etc. Naturally they went to the best schools as well. There is no level playing field in Singapore.

Giving PSC scholarships to these elites is a wrong move. These people are out of touch with the average Singaporeans. They have been sheltered by their elite parents their whole life. They have nothing in common with the rest of Singaporeans. Now they are chosen to serve in the public service.

“Please, get out of my elite uncaring face.”
-Wee Shu Min

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2006/12/%E2%80%9Cplease-get-out-of-my-elite-uncaring-face%E2%80%9D/

Ms Wee is one belongs to the elite class. The daughter of an elite PAP MP, she openly admitted that the struggles of the average Singaporeans was not her concern. She would have been headed for a PSC scholarship if not for her public outburst.

How many of our PSC scholars share here sentiments? All of them probably. Would Mr Eddie Teo do anything about this? Most likely not.

Why? It most probably serves the MIW well to have people in public service detached from the struggles and sufferings of Singaporeans. Despite their protestations to the contrary, the PSC wants ‘yes-men’. It is not in their interest to have people with a conscience so might upset the apple cart.

I will use my vote to effect change. Change for the better.
Hope that you want change too.

1) aygee on November 4th, 2009 10.44 am

I see this as the govt using scholarships as a way to tie talent (even those with money who can study anywhere in the world) with GLCs and the civil service.
=============================================================

These people are not talents. They have benefited from having the best things in life that money can buy.

Example. Usain Bolt is the fastetst man in the world. If you tied both his hands and legs and asked him to race against say, Mr Eddie Teo, he would lose. If Mr Teo a faster runner than Mr Usain Bolt. Never. You will see Mr Bolt’s full potential only when there is a level playing field. Sadly, tragically even, there isn’t one in meritocratic Singapore.

Heckcare & New Era,

It didnt use to be like that. In the ’80s my secondary school fren who used to deliver newspapers in the morning made good with a prestigious PSC overseas scholarship.

But based on what I am hearing, it sounds and seems increasingly difficult for our frens Ah Seng, Ali and Ramasamy to move up/into the elite scholarly ranks of the pseudo-confucian bureaucracy.

Interestingly, his speech is riddled with more negative examples than positive ones. Perhaps, he’s trying to bring his audience of scholars back to ground, but it’s still telling.

Eddie Teo,

The People do not generally have an issue with anyone who advances deservedly in life through merit. The People are mostly upset with the incompetent individuals (scholars or otherwise) at ALL levels of government who are appointed to positions of responsibility, are paid excessively for their contribution and are found to have failed in their jobs. There is little transparency and lesser accountability.

It is a contempt of meritocracy when failure is exchanged for loyalty. It is the taxpayers who are continually paying for the blunders. It is the same reason that Americans are up in arms about the excessive pay for top executives at banks bailed out by US taxpayers. If you cannot understand this simple logic, then you too do NOT deserve your position.

There is an analogy from the kangaroos:

We should not discriminate those who have connections or hold high position in the society.

Vote for Change

Eddie is really liar. There are all sorts of privellege to rich dandy that has nothing even to do with academic results.

We have the white horse system inside the army.

We have the low educated mono intake.

What does this got to do with meritocracy? Singapore is in many way worse than aparthied of bumiputera policy. Welcome to LKY’s Nazi land.

Those from well off families usually can afford to pay off their bond after their scholarship. So that kind of disadvantaged those who wants the scholarship badly (poor) and do not mind the bond involved. The exact statistics of bond breakers has never been published, usual excuses are that they feel hampered in their career. Therefore, given 2 equally deserving candidates, theoretically it shd go the the one with a poorer background. He/she will definitely be hungrier, to climb up the social ladder, than the one who may not want the scholarship in the first place. I am of the the opinion that education is NO longer a level playing field, those with children will know what I mean. There is a world of difference ibetween CDAC/Sinda, etc tuition centres and Learning Lab, etc. It is very difficult for the slower learner without resources to play catch up, streaming at various levels does not help, it worsens the discrimination.

“We should not discriminate against those who are well-off
on the grounds of social justice”

Discriminate against those who are well-off ? laugh, laugh, laugh.

The well-off will know how to take care of themselves and they will know when they are REALLY being discriminated – they probably know about discrimination better than anyone else for the fact that they are where they are (being well-off).

And some of the less well-off still do not have clue what has been hitting them. Just don’t know when these lesser well-off will begin to understand and exorcise for themselves this darker inner masochistic tendency.

Singapore is a meritocracy? Nono, i tot we are elitocracy!

I think Eddie is crazy. Everyone knew Singapore discriminate the poor.

I really do not understand at what time did the well off become “victim” of discrimination.

Now reasons unknown, Eddie jump up and urge everyone “not discriminate against those who are well-off “.

Something is wrong will our government.

Eddie Teo …

Have some balls …donate you fortunes to charity…and once you are poor, get your children to neighobourhood schools, you and your children will not be discriminated. Let’s see how they get their scholarships.

Come on, practice what you preach.

Basically our education system is a failure as Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam has himself admitted.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/03/rethinking-the-term-%E2%80%9Celitism%E2%80%9D/

Its just singing the same old tune. Didn’t we see it again and again.

They know who has the higher EQ and IQ but yet, they prefer people who are wealthier=higher IQ compared to the poor. Seems to me they can only register $$ in their mind no matter what excuse they give.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
— Albert Einstein

what are you mubblin? scholarships meant for those who are POOR!!!
not for ministers’s sons and daughters!!!
which part of you is braindead? defined the words scholarships?
those who are riched cannot aford to send their childrens to a foreign countries WITHOUT scholarships? liked the grandson of leekuanyew?
who earned more than $100,000/month?
than the poor peasants do what?..go to hdb voi8dedecks to rob ole aunties of their vegetable money in order to further their studies?

Read this story of a “Scholar System” which was left in a comment to Tan Kin Lian’s Blog.

http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2009/09/running-country.html?showComment=1251807595403#c8923585106237257489

Does this story ring a bell?
Is it a story of how the ruling party maintaining its strangle-hold of local top talents?

The poor performance of Singapore’s top public servants (16 out of 20 being scholars) is there for all to see. The ever widening gap between rich and poor in Singapore, as Mr Teo himself points to, is in itself ample evidence of their incompetence, especially when he makes such a big deal about “soft skills” (read EQ). Either they are giving bad policy advice to government or their advice is ignored. Either way, they are like tits on a bull – useless.

Of course, I wont be pissed when someone gets a scholarship if he truly deserves it & I feel that it should be given to less fortunate people; that means poor kids! But not when the awards are given to already-bloody-rich kids that could afford to drive to school & never did any holiday work cos mommy couldn’t bear to see her precious kids dirty their delicate hands! It’s tax payers’ money & I really think it should be used for better causes like helping Ah Keong, Ravi or Ali fulfill his potentials & upgrade to a better life. I just wonder if Mr Sim (Creative) would have gone further if he gotten a scholarship, nah….then again, he will probably end up being some MP that we will never see accept during Election!

Every time, my blood boils when I read these kinds of comments from our elite civil servants! They are always talking rubbish & whenever there’re cock-ups, it has be the regular Joes on the street that are causing the headaches. It will never be those highly paid civil servants cos they are scholars & cos they are so highly educated, they wont be making any mistakes. And if they do make mistakes, it has to be those people below that are careless or useless!! Why don’t they take responsibilities & act like real men? I have never heard of any civil servants coming out in the open & apologizing to the citizens. Be it some terrorist’s escape or Town Councils losing our money, it’s always us at fault!! Really getting sick & tired of their arrogant statements.

I remember when this guy called Cedric Foo telling us that White Horse is to prevent the Army from giving better treatment to certain individuals is probably the silliest statement ever issued by these MIWs!!

The rich and well off should not accept scholarship and must be generous and ,magnanimously abandon this in favour of those less well-off on the lower social strata who can perform well academically under usually adverse family living enviroment as compared those well-off – especially , those with everything handed to them on a plate and being nannied but have yet to show academic performance under hostile enviroment.

It is not about discrimination of well -off on ground of social justice but about according level playiig field to all – irrespective of who they are and not denying deserving one a chance.

Most equate awarding scholarship as a kind of exclusive privilege reserves for the less well-off but not those underserving shameless well off who can easily
afford them but choose to go for it at the expense of the hapless poor – and its about benevolence and magnanimous rather prestige and pride of obtaining a scholarship, at the expense of depriving someone who ,may be the next deserving one in the queue.

The word “scholarship” has always been misleading.

It is not a scholarship in the sense we know it. It is a labor contract.

You signed your prime years to the government and give them the right to place u in whatever place they want to.

In return, you enjoy yourself overseas for a number of years and you come back to a low risk high return job.

Seen from this perspective, of course, we should not “discriminate” against the rich for this.

I don’t want to argue this way or that because an experienced and well-trained professional lawyer can argue either way and win the debate hands down. But one thing I do know, and that is:

Our PM Lee Hsien Loong was GIVEN at least TWO scholarships!

And the beauty of it all was that he accepted all of them with ease of conscience!

Perhaps, that is why today there are so many top brains coming out willingly to argue for the rich to be given scholarships, and therefore indirectly telling us to deprive the poor of a chance for further education.

Scholarship has now evolved into a prestige rather than a welfare mechanism to help the needy to improve their lot.

This is uniquely Singapore!

I don’t want to argue this way or that because an experienced and well-trained professional lawyer can argue either way and win the debate hands down.

But one thing I do know, and that is:

Though coming from the most powerful and wealthy background, LHL was easily GIVEN at least TWO if not THREE scholarships!

And the beauty of it all was that he accepted all of them with ease of conscience!

Perhaps, that is why today there are top people coming out willingly to argue for the rich to be given scholarships, and therefore indirectly justifying to us that it is alright to deprive the poor of a chance for further education.

Scholarship has now evolved into a prestige rather than a welfare mechanism to help the needy to improve their lot.

This is uniquely Singapore! Sad. Pathetic.

All they need do is convert overseas scholarships to bursaries. It’ll end up helping more people.

Sure, give scholarships to the wealthy but without financial benefits and retaining the same terms and conditions i.e. bonds etc.

The wealthy students still get recognition for their academic performance and prestige of being a scholar.

The money saved can be used to provide bursaries etc to the financially strapped students.

Mars—Fully agree with you.
Means testing should be done on all scholarship awardees.
They can keep the PRESTIGE but not the monies.
After all, the precedent was set a long time ago when rich Malays at tertiary level had their tax-funded course fees taken away and given to Mendaki.
Taxes should never be used to fund education of multi-millionaire’s kids-especially millionster’s children.
If we can do means testing for health cost ,we can do it for scholarships—same PRINCIPLE.
Do not be ROBIN CROOK.–rob the poor to give to the rich.

Everyone please wake up. Most has only seen a part of scholarship system but miss out the whole picture.

The scholarship most part is for the rich and powerful. This is to give them a golden gild and Ivy league mystic aura so put them on leadership.

Best example Lee Hsien Loong. Got president scholarship. Out of his 13 years in SAF, 4 in cambrigde, around 2 in Havard in US military school of command. He serve around 8 years total in army and got promoted to BG, because he is scholar.

That would makes him the youngest BG in the entire universe I can find except Napoleon Bonaparte. He was promoted faster than Erwin Rommel, MacArthur, Patton, Eisenhower, Meinstein, Montgomery, Ariel Sharon…..etc

And crackpot Eddie wants to preserve this system…haha

Lee Hsien Long’s children were all on scholarships.

Lee Hongyi is now at MIT (US) on a govt scholarship.

Lee Hogyi’s father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, uncles and aunties are all multi-millionaires many times over.

Pubic opinion is slowly turning against these PSC scholars. They are elitists who have benefited from the system but have very low ambitions. Instead of seeking challenges in the corporate world, they have chosen to become ‘Yes-men’ in the civil service.

During their childhood, everything was planned and mapped out by their parents and now their careers have been set by the civil service. It must be a very dull life.

sick and tired of these craps and bull c**k shit from elite’s mouth.

The danger in all this is elitism.

And as we have seen in various examples, elitism in all forms and all aspects of our society is now such a formidable force that even mentioning it is no longer taboo. In fact, elitism is very much portrayed as a much maligned class by our government and ‘elite’ leaders. The reason? Every elite group works towards portecting its interests, producing more people of their own class and eventually, hopefully, to dominate the entire society with their norms and culture.

The government is so terrified of losing some of these ‘elite’ performers that their policies all seem tailored to protect this group of supposedly high achievers who they see as the major drivers of the economy. They are blind to the abuses of this system and to the resentment of the masses. Even if they choose to change, its almost impossible as the elites have entrenched themselves in every aspect of government.

I have to admit that there are many who have benfitted through the system of meritocracy here but what the elites have is not the same system as what we the masses experience or enjoy. As mentioned before, the structures of power and favouritism the elites used to benefit themselves at our expense is elitocracy.

This so called ‘elite’ is talking crap and with his head in cloud nine!
This is what he should say “We should not discriminate against those who
are ‘not’ well off on the grounds of social justice”!

The scholarship is a means for making sure the most talented people serve in the public service.

Anything short of pure meritocracy when it comes to judging who should just the scholarship, like whether this chap’s parents earnt less than the other person’s, or whether he went to elite tuition centre, will mean that not the best people scholarships.

The scholarship is NOT a social welfare mechanism. I think perhaps you guys should consider that before you start attacking the validity of the awarding system.

Imperial china had a scholar system….and it got its ass kicked big time by the western powers plus with corruption entrenched in the system too…..

singapore also have a scholar system now….and it looks like history might already be repeating itself…..

How did this beautiful country & society degrade into such a sorry state? Ironically, its since the scouting and rewarding of ‘top talents’ started isn’t it?

Scholaristic System from Imperial Tangs dynasty had being abolished during the May 4 Incident.

Sad to see Singapore running this tracks. See Europe, America without such system can produce so many talents compare to our educated idiots.

I don’t want me children to be Scholar.

“We should not discriminate against those who are poor
on the grounds of social justice”, said Vice Chairman of People’s Justice Commission, Dr Eddie Lee.

If on the basis of merit a student wins a PSC scholarship by all means let the student have the honour. But before you dole out the money have a means test and if the student does not make the cut, no money is expanded but only an honour.
In this way the money saved can be given to a student of poor means who ordinarily may not have qualified for the scholarship. In other words more students from poor backgrounds can be given a helping hand.
Remember the PSC does not have a blank cheque–it too has a budget to be mindful of.

“We should not discriminate against those who are well-off on the grounds of social justice”

1. This does NOT mean that the civil service does not discriminate against those scholars who are out of touch with ordinary Singaporeans. In fact, OP article clearly expresses concern as to whether “this elitist system [is] producing public servants with no empathy for, and understanding of, the problems and grievances of ordinary Singaporeans” and how can “[these scholars] be good public servants if they think they are privileged and believe that their role is to lord over, rather than serve, the public?”

2. This also does NOT mean that no consideration is given to less privileged students who, on account of their socio-economic circumstance, had to struggle that much harder to get to where they were and achieve what they did. OP article says specifically “We pay special attention to those from a humble background to draw out those who have great potential but may not yet have the polish and finesse of their more socio-economically advantaged peers.” and there are concrete examples, including for the most prestigious scholarship http://www.ri.sch.edu.sg/old/news/2003/presscholars/scholar.htm. However, exactly how much consideration should be given will always be a thick grey line. This IS meritocracy from a more holistic perspective, and not the parochial version emphasizing “pure” academic talent that some of us might have grown up with.

3. It certainly does NOT mean that scholarships are just a reward. Scholarships clearly carry an obligation as well. Our scholarship system is far from perfect, but has contributed to Singapore’s success by attracting and retaining an important pool of local and overseas-trained manpower.

I hope you judge and disagree with the content of my post rather than just disagreeing on principle, or based on one or two negative examples. There are certainly scholars that should never have been selected. But if all you are saying is “this is crap” or “wake up” or “elite bullshit” then how can anyone engage you or listen to your ideas about how to improve the system?

Re 41) Kenneth

Are you sure you are not insane?

Lee Hsien Loong BG 32
George Yeo BG 34
Teo Chee Hean BG 37
Lui Tuck Yew BG 38

And many others. What I know is that they are youngest BG in universe without firing a single shot at enemy. Just a office king giving orders to others because they are scholar.

We have to give all these BGs 6 figure salary doing nothing and afterthat they most likely become parasite of DSTA, ST, other GLCs which is the reason why our GLCs will bankrupt without government patron.

All of them got BG younger than
General Erwin Rommel,
General Douglas MacArthur,
General Patton,
General Eisenhower,
General Von Meinstein,
General Montgomery,
General Ariel Sharon…..etc

Only Napoloeon Bonaparte is younger.

Re 41) Kenneth

Many of our scholars are evil creatures.HK boss Donald Tsang joined civil service at A level. Collin Powell is a rascal student in CCNY.

We do not have such “uneducated boss” in civil service because our scholar class condemn these hardworking people and give other people credit to themselves.

We compare General David Petraeus (he is scholar equivalent academically , best general now). He is BG at 48, fought in real battles injured many times. Ours got it 32 years old, yet unknown to me what he has done better than David Petraeus.

Can you see the evil of our scholarship system?

Yes our scholars generals have never proven themselves in battle. But they get their promotion by the numbers of files they pushed through their ‘out’ tray. I guess those with a conscience would not feel any sense of accomplishment.

Sadly, these same officers are not aware that they are the laughing stock of the military world.

“We should not discriminate against those who are well-off
on the grounds of social justice”

Then why am I being discriminate for just breaching the income ceiling cap for HDB house?
Why am I not entitled to my share of subsidy in public housing?

They (Govt) sing the tune to whatever suits them.

*Kenneth
You base your arguments on carefully written and composed public speeches given by govt leaders and agencies.

What we would like to know firstly is the objective of scholarships in its truest and purest sense – a grant or payment made to support a student’s education, awarded on the basis of academic or other achievement.. In its purest ‘understanding’, scholarships would not carry any employment bond or obligations – they would be given to deserving individuals who would hopefully contribute back to society one way or another once they finish their education. In this instance, most scholarships are given out by the academic institutions themselves of by chary foundations.

The govt ties our scholarship to a bond wit the civil service as it is using taxpayer’s money to fund these scholarships – which i think its fair. What i don’t think is fair is that these scholarships are given to well off individuals who DO NOT need the money in the first place. By giving them to rich individuals, they simply make the rich richer – furthering creating a class of wealthy elites.

If the aim of these scholarships is to attract and tie down talented individuals to the civil service then i think the govt is going about retaining talents the wrong way. They should discover why the civil service is not an attractive place for potential employees, why people quit once their bond is up, why no one holds the civil service in high regard.

Using the scholarship as a reason for retaining talent in the govt is a pathetic excuse to justify giving it to rich kids. It should be used first and foremost to level the economic playing field within our society and to give hope and inspiration to those without means – to tell that if they are truly gifted or work hard, the govt is there to support you all the way.

Now i don’t mind contributing part of my income tax to such a noble endeavor.

Let me try to better understand the problems, one at a time.

I assume that nobody is suggesting Singapore shouldn’t have any generals just because we haven’t fought in a war – that would be quite a strange position to take.

So the main argument is that our generals are 1) too young, 2) not chosen on the basis of merit but because they were scholars and 3) not doing enough to earn their salaries. Please add if I missed out your point (I don’t quite know what to do with the point that they’re “evil creatures.”), and understand that I am giving my own view, not the government’s position on the matter.

1) Too young.

It is a fact that Singapore has very young generals. But our officers earn accolades and respect from foreign militaries when they top their courses at overseas institutions including Sandhurst (Iskandar Abdullah), the Australian Defence Force Academy (Benson Chian) and the Indonesian Army Staff and Command School (David Neo) and many others. Others have also (generally) done well even though they may not have topped their class. I know that topping a class, even at Sandhurst, does not equate to winning a war but it does provide us with an objective assessment of the overall quality of our officers. Furthermore, I don’t see “too young as a big issue provided they satisfy 2) and 3).

2) Not chosen on the basis of merit but because they were scholars

I cannot speak for those who came many years before me because I wasn’t there and I have no access to documents which describe how they were chosen. However, for the more recent ranking exercises, I would have to disagree with this statement. At the earlier stage in their careers, I would agree that scholars are usually given more opportunities to prove themselves, but the competition for senior appointment is fierce and the individual eventually selected is selected on the basis of merit. That is all I can say since there is no paper exam that determines who gets appointed a General and there is no way for me to offer objective proof of higher test scores.

3) Doing nothing to earn their salaries

I agree that the salaries of our Generals are high. But I don’t think that many people outside of MINDEF would have a clear idea what the job scope of a General entails in peacetime. Is leading a Division “doing nothing?” what about leading a flight squadron? Or running SAFTI?

To me, it doesn’t make any sense to say that they’re doing nothing just because there hasn’t been a war to fight. In any case, we should recognise that people doing the exact same work in different parts of the world receive drastically different salaries e.g. programmers in India vs programmers in the US, or road sweepers in China vs road sweepers in Europe. The world just isn’t fair that way and it is unrealistic to expect it to be. If we agree that Defence is important and we need good calibre people there then the more important question is whether we have the correct (high calibre) people.

Singapore prizes intellectual capacity, and hences places a strong emphasis on academic results. But we also prize leadership, integrity, humility etc highly and try to select our scholars based on these qualities, especially since straights As are a dime a dozen nowadays. After a scholar, military or otherwise, starts work, he is assessed based on performance and merit. The performance of his boss partially depends on his performance so weak performers are seldom protected. I think we have a reasonable system to pick the correct people.

But all systems make mistakes, including the selection system in Microsoft, Google, NTUC, or even Breadtalk. Of course our civil service does as well. But civil servants, scholars or not, generally, work very hard and have done very well by most international benchmarks for efficiency, lack of corruption, bureaucracy and use of technology. Personally, I think we do less well when it comes to quality service but there are efforts to improve on those areas as well e.g. listing the QSM online and having transparent service standards.

Like I said at the start, I agree that their salaries are high, but I cannot say whether they deserve it or not. And I definately don’t agree that they’re doing nothing as they each have a sizable work portfolio in MINDEF. I think the system (mostly) works to identify the best performers who get appointed as Generals.

To: sloo

The Singapore scholarship system is indeed mainly a talent attraction and retention tool. But it does “pay special attention to those from a humble background to draw out those who have great potential but may not yet have the polish and finesse of their more socio-economically advantaged peers.” I quote Eddie Teo because he is in a better position to make such a statement whereas I can obly pick out individual examples I may be aware of.

I understand why you object to giving the money to people who can afford it. But because there is no maximum quota and no funding cap, nobody who meets PSC’s criteria is denied a chance.

I’m not sure I fully understand what you meant by “levelling the economic playing field.” Does your statement mean that you think the government should make sure every child has the same opportunities? Please correct me if I’m wrong because this would involve either:
1) preventing parents from spending money on enrichment for their children as this would give these kinds more opportunities (level-down everyone). And I don’t see how the government could do that even if it wanted to do so.
2) payng to make sure every child has access to every single learning opportunity that the richest parent can afford (level-up everyone). It would be impossible for the government to fund such an option.

So if we take for granted that some children have more opportunities than others, do we automatically we give to those children who had fewer opportunities? I feel that, because of the bond period, the scholarship selection is really selection for employment. Hence the government should to try and get the best person for the job, taking into consideration the strength of character that a disadvantaged student that has done well would have demonstrated.

Nobody should be denied higher education if they meet the university entrance criteria. And our universities follow this creed, regardless of the students’ ability to pay.

And I fully agree with you that, if scholarships were the only way the government was trying to attract and retain talent, that would be an epic failure. But there are so many other mechanism, with some (e.g. Edupac) being more well-received than others (e.g. mid-career recruitment programme). I am definately not saying that the government is doing enough. In fact, the government can never do enough because they should always try to improve. I know only a small fraction of the initiatives and programmes but I think it is more constructive to give feedback about the specific flaws in each programme to the department concerned.

And not everyone quits after their bonds end. Some decide to stay on, some quit because they don’t like the job, some quit to have children, and some quit because they have a more lucrative job offer. Everyone’s has his or her own reasons. Among those reasons, there are those who truly want to serve Singapore and, rich or poor, they tend to be excellent civil servants.

Re 47) Kenneth

So you think topping in military or civilian schools make scholar deserve a BG second only to Napoleon Bonaparte? You think Lee Hsien Loong deserve a BG just 8 years of active field service (the rest studying in US Europe)?

You think those BG deserve to be faster than Rommel without firing a single shot?

If this works, why no military in the world follow our business.

Very often (not uncommon), the best military commanders is those who cannot study well.

Those SAF BG might not be even fit to be a PC. Will be explain in next post.

In conventional military, a command can only get their man to fight efficiently after 2 years of bonding as PC.

Then the company commander stage will take another 2 years.

All military command need at least 4 years of field service at company commander and below. First, to build a team of comrade in arm that will trust the commander with their life. These team of commrade will then move on with the commander to next level, this is how chain of interrupted command works in army. Its most effective when people knew personally that the commander is going to bring them to victory.

All military commander went through this stage and whenever they went, they brought along some their previous staff.

While I do not know how long really these SAF BGs spent on field. (lee Hsien Loong)8 years to BG, I do not know how much he really knew about soldiering and how much he contributed to merit this.

All outstanding commander has 1 characteristic. They in infront. Rommel brave bullets in the front building brigdes with his combat engineer.

I never see any of SAF BG digging a single trench. What I know is they are perpetually in aircon room.

In short, they have no integrity no caliber and (might not be able to pass IPPT and SOC)

I don’t know enough about military doctrine to contradict most of what you wrote. You could write to MINDEF and see what they have to say?

I do know that you are wrong in implying that BGs generally dig trenches alongside their men – I seriously doubt any army in the world practices this as combat doctrine.

But don’t misunderstand – I never said topping military schools makes a scholar deserving to be appointed BG. In fact, none of my examples were BGs. I was only making a specific point that “too young” is not a valid criticism on its own as these officers are able to do well compared to more experienced peers.

I also said that I understand that topping a class at Sandhurst is not the same as winning a war. In fact, I believe nothing can replace actual combat experience. But we also can’t wait for a war to prove our soldiers before we appoint any generals.

If 1) too young is not a valid criticism, and 2) we don’t wait for a war to appoint generals, then I think it follows that we should just appoint the best person to do the job. That is why I went on to talk about selection based on merit, although I only talked about the current situation as I have no information about how generals were selected in the past e.g. PM.

*Kenneth
As i mentioned before, you selected quotes come from very carefully composed speeches and statements of public and govt leaders. These statemnts are made to support one view the govt’s view. Therein lies the problem when discussing this issue wit other posters here – we are seeing the issue from very different perspectives.

I choose to see the term scholarship in its most basic definition and what is stands for – i.e.. financial assistance to the talented who are unable to afford higher education to further realize their potential. I have a problem with the ’scholarships’ as defined by PSC or our govt – as a means to attract and retain talent.

Instead of subverting what is essentially a honorable scheme to help the underprivileged, we now have scholarships given to the privileged. I would rather the PSC rename their so called scholarships as what it is – Finanical Aid for Civil Service Bondage or FACS. Lets call a spade a spade and lets not corrupt the original meaning of words. This is what our leaders are good for especially when it comes to terms like ‘human right’, ‘democracy’ and ‘meritocracy.’

You have clearly taken my statement ‘to level the economic playing field’ far beyond its original meaning. I made the statement with reference to scholarships, and seen in this context, my statement is an extension of the original intent of the term. I certainly did not imply anything about forbidding parents to send their children to enrichment classes etc.

Parents can do all they want for their kids with the means they have to give them a head start; the govt’s role, where scholarships are concerned, is to provide a sponsored head start to those without means. Right now, if you have the means, your head start begins at a very young age. So lets us do the right thing and help those who simply have no way of helping themselves.

And if the universities here truly wants to ensure that every qualified person is given a chance at a tetiary education, why have astronomical fees in the first place? Why not have practically free education for our citizens as it is in many countries like Australia and Germany. Citizens here pay five figure sums every year for their university education while our taxpayers money goes to scholarships for the rich (53%) and foreigners (yes thats another issue!).

Where a scheme can be used to be a tool for social good, I find it sad that our authorities have used it to create an elite class of wealthy, powerful people intent on preserving their superior roles in our nation. I find it sad that our govt has used it for their own selfish intents without paying heed to the masses and instead, chastise us for discriminating against the rich. I must say we have to be the only nation in the world where a senior civil servant has made a statement like that.

Re 51) Kenneth

Well Kenneth, say whatever you want to say but we have all plenty of young BGs in army which got their rank earlier many great soldiers.

You may argue this is the best system in the world which I cannot prove anything otherwise except that no army elsewhere doing it is self evidence enough to show it is a junk system. Otherwise, the US would have implemented it.

And definitely we would have trashed people like Powell, Patton for they are failed in exam but are among the greatest soldier proving themselves better than those exam kids.

Our system actually murders great soldiers.

If there is little for army to prove their talent, those appointed in GLCs may give us benchmark.

Bey Soo Kiang since his appointment on SIA brings only dismay results bring our once profitable airlines to serial loses. Worse still, those ex-SAF in Temasek ( you know who ) basically gamble all our hard earn saving.

Kenneth many are already self evidence. These air-con BG is good because our government say so. They failed miserably once there is a benchmark.

“I do know that you are wrong in implying that BGs generally dig trenches alongside their men – I seriously doubt any army in the world practices this as combat doctrine. ”

This is the trait of all great general although it is deemed absurb in practice.

L General Erwin Rommel built bridge with his combat engineer braving enemy fire with his men. M General Rommel’s tank is always in the front of Afrika Corp.

Most great soldier (very often even at brigate level) lead soldiers at the front.

The counter-intuition practice is against all combat doctrine but it has one extremely valuable purpose.

It energise all the soldiers.

Now you get it and now you know why air-con BGs are useless. Or are you implying Rommel is stupid?

Dear Kenneth

http://books.google.com/books?id=sIZHRDSGiDMC&pg=PA119&dq=IDF+officer+candidate&lr=#v=onepage&q=IDF%20officer%20candidate&f=false

The above links you to how the best army in the world (our teacher as well) IDF, Israeli Defence Force form its officer.

It took them 5 years to graduate as a PC.

Because IDF believe that only officer can only earn the trust of men and comrade working together that duration of time. Else, it would have an ineffective fighting unit, (maybe a unit full of air-con BGs).

We learn many stuff from IDF and why not follow them on their promotion system as well, since they are a success proven system. Whereas we can only speculate and boast how good our BGs without firing even a shot at enemy.

Mindef knows best what is the reason.

Dear sloo,

I apologize if I took your comment on leveling the playing field out of context – it was not deliberate. Also, I quote from government speeches for points that I agree with – I hope that the source does not detract from the content. I hope it is clear that I am representing my own views, even when I am using someone else’s words.

I believe you have asserted a basic definition of scholarships that is incorrect. http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx and
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn both give the following definition “financial aid provided to a student on the basis of academic merit.” I have not seen a source which says that scholarships are strictly (or were originally) awarded for the purpose of social equity. The writeup in Wikipedia, although US-biased, further substantiates this understanding, describing different types of scholarships.

That said, I do not object to the idea of increasing the weight or special consideration given to scholarship applicants who come from poorer families. But this is not a black and white issue – a grey line is drawn once you need to define how poor is poor? And select, based on merit, who to award scholarships to within this group of eligible applicants.

Because there is no numerical quota on scholarships, I see the award of scholarships to so-called rich-kids as a separate issue, meaning that it does not take away from the opportunities given to applicants from poorer families. Fundamentally, I agree with the concept of using scholarships as a talent attraction mechanism to attract talent regardless of socio-economic background because I feel that the civil service needs to attract some of the best brains+hearts to serve Singapore.

May I ask if you know anyone who has missed out on a university education because he couldn’t afford the fees? I would suggest the case be raised to MOE for their attention because this is something they have promised wouldn’t happen.

I understand that I am seeing the issue very differently from other posters – but that is why I thought discussion would be useful. People who already agree would not benefit from a discussion as much as people who disagree but are trying to understand each others’ points of view. There will be more than one perspective on every issue and even if each side fails to persuade the other, it is still constructive to understand new perspectives.

I agree that our civil service leadership could be more diverse in terms of social and educational background. But I do not agree that scholarships have “created an elite class of wealthy, powerful people intent on preserving their superior roles in our nation.” That is an unfair description of most of the scholars that I know. In fact, scholars who are mainly driven by money are more likely to leave for a more lucrative pay package overseas than to stay in the civil service to “preserve a superior role” for the so-called elite class in Singapore.

Just to be clear, I would like to ask if you see the government’s scholarship policy as a bad decision and lousy policy, or do you really see the entire Singapore government as completely corrupt and using scholarships for their “own selfish intents?”

To: http://vonhayek.blogspot.com/

I have not argued that our system is the best system in the world. I only have said that your arguments are unfair and I do not accept your assertion that it is self-evident that our system is junk.

Two of your supporting statements to argue that our system is junk are:
1. Otherwise, the US would have implemented it.
2. Our system actually murders great soldiers.

First, I would not measure the merit of our system by what the US has implemented. Second, our system has produced good soldiers acknowledged by other militaries including the US, even if they have not proven themselves in a war.

You also said that “And definitely we would have trashed people like Powell, Patton… [truncated],”
Just to clarify, Powell graduated in 1958 from City University in New York, and earned his MBA in George Washingtopn University in 1971. Patton was forced to repeat his plebe year at the United States Military Academy for poor performance in mathematics but eventually graduated in 1909 as Cadet Adjutant (our equivalent is one step below SOH). I do not know whether they would have the same opportunities to rise up the ranks in our system but I do not think we would have “trashed them” and especially not Patton.

Do I think Bey Soo Kiang has done poorly in SIA? I think so, acknowledging at the same time that I have access to pretty limited information to draw this conclusion. But I also think Nixon did poorly. And Madoff. And Tian Wenhua. But I do not think Bey Soo Kiang received his SAF appointment because he was once a scholar, which is what I believe you’re trying to imply.

Deliberately provocative language is seldom constructive. I was not implying that Rommel was stupid. I was implying that, notwithstanding one positive example, no army in the world requires that BGs dig trenches alongside their men as part of combat doctrine. Neither the Israelis nor the United States armies have this as part of their combat doctrine. In any case, the Division command trench is dug by Combat Engineers, not Division HQ personnel so the point is entirely moot.

If you were trying to talk about whether the men in the unit respect our generals then I think the answer is specific to the individual unit. I am not famliar with too many SAF units but among the units that I am familiar with, at least those under Lim Chuan Poh and Teo Chee Hean had a great deal of respect for them.

Re Kenneth 57)

Powell is a Cs student in CCNY, one of the less academic challenged university in USA.

Patton was forced to repeat his plebe year at the United States Military Academy for poor performance in mathematics.

You look at our top beuracrat and how many of got Cs in Uni and how many of them ever repeat in their studies?

Our system has all those EM3 and NT which is a point of no return. Patton may have been stream to EM3 or NT given a slight mishaps. Which General of Patton’s Level in SAF ever repeat OCS and given a chance to rise on top? Maybe there is but I knew none.

What about HK top beuracrats like Donald Tsang and Tang King Shing, they joined as A level. Where is our top boss from A level entry. Isnt it self evidence that our scholarship class actually prevent the rise of people who deserve it?

All these late boomer may prosper under a true meritocratic system but no ours. Is it not self evidence we have steamrolled non scholar?

About digging trench, I did not mean it literally. What I mean is all great soldiers either love to spent a great deal of time with man or quality time with give their man lasting impression that they sacrifices their life. Many lead in front. Sorry I give the wrong cue.

At least on their days when they are junior or middle level officer.

How our general are well like I am not too sure. But I can tell you our conscription is a total failure if we benchmark with IDF(if you want I will explain).

How capable our SAF scholar is, the time you know is they went to profit oriented private sector, example Temasek. They are among the worst.

And IDF officer serve a total of 4 years. If he he good, he will be consider for company level command. I do not know why BG Lee can attained his position just around 8-9 years of real service in SAF.

Re 57) Kenneth

I want also to explain why our SAF system will not work when others do not implement it.

In democratic country, every life lost in battle produces a hugh anti war sentiment. Hence, all democratic government strives to fight as efficicently as possible.

Take for example the best soldier in democratic country is Israel.

It may be possible the Israeli parachute white horse or scholar in some point of time to high ranks of army. (remember every countries have their privellege class who want nothing less than commanding position)

If it produces good results and good command, they would have continue doing it and with more vigor.

The fact that Israel especially, requires its commander to spend significant time in career as low and middle ranking officer instead of a “groom leadership” track shows that there is no basis for 32 years old BG. (unless he is Napoleon)

Do you think SAF can win IDF in war? And how you compare SAF commanders to IDF legendary soldiers? And why IDF forged concensus that commanders should never have our kind of short circuit track?

If a cambridge scholar can win a war better than an IDF verteran, IDF is certainly willing to adopt our system.

We learn many things from IDF unfortunately our elite like too much to promote fast and young.

To: http://vonhayek.blogspot.com/

I repeat that I do not know enough about military doctrine to debate this issue.

That said, if I were to speculate, then no, I do not think SAF can win the IDF in a war. The IDF has rich combat experience, and I do not think anything can replace combat experience. They also (probably) have superior technology from the US and the benefit of using experienced soldiers to train their new recruits.

But I do not think that anyone would credit a hypothetical IDF win over the SAF simply to the rapid career progression of SAF generals. I think that the real problem would be lack of combat experience, followed by IDF’s superior technology and training. But I do not have an answer as to how we should get real combat experience. Training, however realistic, will always fall short.

I understand your point – rapport between leaders and the ground is important. And not just in the military. But I disgaree with your assertion that all our (scholar) military leaders have no rapport with soldiers on the ground because of my personal experience with good counter-examples. And I completely disagree with your statement that our generals have “no integrity no calibre.”

To: http://vonhayek.blogspot.com/

No, I do not think the SAF can win the IDF in a war. This is because the IDF has rich combat experience – I do not think anything can replace combat experience. Furthermore, IDF probably have superior technology from the US and superior training from their war veterans. Experience, technology and training will, in my view, matter much more than how fast the generals progressed in their careers.

But I understand your point – you are trying to emphasize the importance of rapport between leaders and the ground. I agree that this is important, in fact for all leaders and not just those in the military. But I disagree with your assertion that all our scholar military leaders have no rapport with the ground. And I completely disagree with your statement that all of them have “no integrity no caliber” because I know of concrete counter-examples.

Re 62) Kenneth

I have raise several points and not just this one. You have failed to reply me why there is no Donald Tsang and friends here.

Next please do you due diligent to read more about how other military works before even commenting. Do a google book search.

And I am going to give you one more doctrinal lesson. Historically, all army started off with white horse system. Thats all the OCS and non-comms rank system came about. The aristocratic (aristocrat are best educated people) basically has a short circuit career.

It evolve into the current form where aristocrat no longer able to have parachutte because the white horse short circuit system are not able to match the efficiency of the system IDF and other modern armies have. Thats why it dies out though not completely.

And why not we go the IDF way since they are combat proven?

And scholarship system not only injured the army but the whole society as well. We do not have industrious and creative output because our government lock in many of the above average people.

Next government thinks they can emulate the french dirgiste system by asking scholars to run GLCs which till now failed miserably.
Singapore is the only Chinese society without significant entrepreneur. What a shame.

Even the French ENA system is the most corrupted system in the whole western democratic world. Ours is even worse than them.

I believe asking scholar to run the army might not be the worst system, There are plenty of junk system like asking relatives, cronies to run the army. I agreed scholar on the whole may make some sound judgement sometimes. Unfortunately, there are much better way of doing things elsewhere.

And I want also to conclude our conscription is a failure now. Must I cite IDF again?