Lest I become labelled as an “anti-establishment” blogger and get bookmarked by the ruling party’s subcommittee on New Media for some of my previous posts, it’s time for me to defend my country on the blogosphere.
I read with interest a Malaysian’s blog featured on Tomorrow.sg. This guy goes by the nickname of Mark Eleven. Apparently, he was awarded an ASEAN Scholarship some years ago for Pre-U studies. Now, he is ranting about why it sucked and how Singapore is SCAMMING Malaysians with such scholarships.
In my opinion, this guy is being too harsh about it. He claimed that $2,300 a year for living expenses is a very low amount for a scholarship. Well, I would admit that it probably ain’t enough to sustain the full costs of living in Singapore. However, before claiming that Singapore is scamming him, he should reflect on whether Singapore owes the scholarship to him.
Awarding the scholarship to non-Singaporeans is purely a measure of goodwill. Many Singaporeans would love to get their hands on a $2,300 scholarship, as it certainly helps to offset living expenses to a good extent. Instead of thanking Singapore for giving him the opportunity to study here on subsidised terms, he is attacking us on all fronts.
Let me refute his claims point-for-point:
1. Is ASEAN Scholarship really a scholarship?
Mark Eleven complains that the money was not enough to cover his daily costs. WTF. Do we owe the $2,300 to him in the first place? What did he do for Singapore? Did he serve NS? In the first place, if he considered the money insufficient, he should just stay in Malaysia and leave the scholarship for somebody else who would be more appreciative of it.
2. One Way Ticket
He claims that the ASEAN scholarship is a trap for foreign students to get them to come here and stay on and work here after they graduate from Pre-U. What a joke! As far as I know, and as I pointed out in my earlier post on What Benefits do Singaporeans Enjoy?, many students from ASEAN are more than happy to work in Singapore after their studies, earning many times what they can get back home.
Then again, my question is: Do we owe it to you?
3. Brainwashing by PAP Machineries
The writer mentions that all students are subjected to brainwashing session every morning with the recital of the National Pledge and singing of National Anthmn. This is probably the most lop-sided argument I’ve ever heard, and worst still, coming from a supposedly highly educated scholar!
First and foremost, this is the norm for schools not only in Singapore, but other countries too. I am not sure about Malaysia, but this is a very basic form of National Education. Well, if you are in Singapore, you cannot expect the school to make exceptions to you and excuse you from doing this just because you are a foreigner.
About the part on PAP, I don’t understand what point he is trying to make. Certainly, there are a lot of controversial issues surrounding the ruling party. But to be fair, this is surely not one of them. I am sure even if the country is ruled by other parties, such National Education programs will continue to run.
4. Meritocracy
The writer claims that there is no true meritocracy in Singapore. I would say this is not entirely untrue, but the reasons that he gave were wrong.
The writer picked the issue of gaining entry into NUS Medical School as an example. He claimed that there were no chances given to ASEAN scholars to be considered for entry.
My question again: Do we owe it to you?
Singapore is a small nation. NUS Medical Faculty is a small faculty. There can only be so many doctors graduating from NUS each year, and already we are facing the problem of shortage of doctors in our local hospitals. Why should we expend our resources to teach foreign doctors only to have them leave our country to work elsewhere, when we are already short-handed? Any sensible government would put a limit on the admission of foreign medical students under such circumstances.
He also claimed that Singaporean females had almost ZERO chances of getting into medical school. Not true. I am from NUS and I know of a number of female medical students.
5. Higher Standard in Cambridge O-level and A-level?
Writer claimed that the supposedly high standards of Cambridge exams are disputed by some factions. Whatever. In any case, Cambridge certs are certainly still more popular among employers compared to Malaysian certs.
6. Opportunity Costs
Here comes the part complaining about the 3 year bond for foreign students to work in Singapore after they graduate. Look again. Is it an opportunity COST or GAIN? Foreign students work here and earn higher pay than they can in their home countries. After 3 years, they can choose to pack up and go home and lead comfortable lives with their savings. Or they can stay on here and become PRs.
Is it their loss and Singapore’s gain, or the other way round? I think it is the latter case. They come here and rob Singaporeans of our jobs and then complain about it?!
My question again: Do we owe it to you?
7. Immaturity
He claims that Singaporean students are relatively immatured compared to his counterparts back in Malaysia. He substantiates this argument with a very strange comparison, saying that in our free time, Singapore students like to sit around in a group and sing(?!) WTF. Maybe it’s just those few Singaporean friends that he had. Most of the people I know don’t do that.
In a poor attempt to give more strength to his argument, he claims that some Malaysian students he knows were already business owners with pasar malam stalls. Haha. This is really hilarious. He obviously never met some of the more enterprising students in Singapore. The writer probably had a very small circle of aquaintances in Singapore.
8. Rote Learning
The writer tried to undermine Singapore’s internationally-renowned education system with his claim of Singaporean students having little general knowledge. Again, maybe it’s just his friends who “sit around in a group to sing” in their free time.
9. The System in Singapore is not Conducive for High Flyers
For once, I agree with this guy. However, I want to point out that if you are indeed a true High Flyer, you will excel anywhere you go.
10. Unhealthy Competition
While I agree on this to a certain extent, the writer cites some examples of things that happened in TJC during his time. Not the general picture.
Lastly, Mark Eleven mentioned that he spent more than 10 years in Singapore studying and working. And he disliked it so much that he spent more than 10 years here? Who is defending Singapore for this ingrate, one of many who can come and go as they like? Enjoy the benefits of our economy while ranting about how “tough” life in Singapore is? Don’t need to serve NS somemore.
———————
Look at what Singapore has done. We give money away to foreign students and they are not grateful about it. They go so far as to complain that the money is not enough.
It is time for the government to take a look at whether these scholarships are serving any useful purposes. Are we being fools, giving our money away in return for such criticisms? My late father once told me that he once overheard a Chinese national speaking on the phone, presumably to his hometown friend: “新加坡人钱多，人傻 – 快来!” (Singaporeans are rich and dumb, come over!)
If there is one thing in common between our opinions, it must be the part on encouraging foreigners not to take up Singapore’s scholarships. Yes. Please don’t come here and take away our jobs. Please don’t come here and take up our university enrolment slots. Please stay in your own countries and lead your own peaceful, better lives there.
No related posts.
[...] Thanks to Tomorrow, I happened upon this really interesting take on our ASEAN scholarship. There’s also a reply to the charge that we are scamming ASEAN scholars. Seriously I got to say that the fellah is a whiner, and a tad bit ungrateful. For someone who took the scholarship and is now here working, he sounds kinda ungrateful. Mr Biao gives pretty good rebuttals for each of Mark Elven’s points, and I wonder if Mark Eleven would venture a reply to Mr Biao. [...]
Good one. Lesson for the government too.
I am American. In the US, there are foreign students at every university, and the percentage can be quite high. Some (but very few) are given scholarships. The vast majority of foreigners pay a lot of money (S$50,000 per year is not unheard of in a good school) to attend American schools. If Singapore schools are so good, then why is Singapore unable to attract paying foreigners like the US? From the outside, it appears as if Singapore is subsidizing their studies and then bonding them to work there and expecting an overall economic benefit. I doubt if it is possible.
However, I do think that Singapore’s universities are quite good, and I am actually surprised to see so many mainlanders going to 3rd rate, expensive, US schools when they could go to NUS instead. My untested and unproven hypothesis is that Singapore’s schools are paying dearly for the government’s reputation. Abroad (even in China!), Singapore itself has a reputation of being authoritarian, harsh, with canings and executions, bonds, and censorship. I highly doubt that any artist, aspiring filmmaker, or political science student would want to go to Singapore simply because of the political climate. While many Singaporeans would argue that all the strict controls are necessary to achieve societal goals, I hope that people recognize that the prestige of the country’s universities is one price to pay. After all, who will ever study public policy at the “Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy” if they think that Lee Kwan Yew is a dictator?
Perhaps this Malaysian’s ranting is a result of more broad negative feelings about Singapore’s system, and not simply a result of the scholarship program.
In the US, foreign students contribute greatly to the economy, even while they are students! Graduate students (in the sciences, at least) normally go for free, and we are forced to send most of them home, effectively keeping only the best in the US to innovate and lead (as H1-B visas have a quota). I find it odd that Singapore has to force its scholars to stay with a bond. If Singapore is such a nice place as the government says, or if it is so nice that the pay is “much higher than at home”, then wouldn’t they want to stay on their own? If they don’t, then I think there may be a much bigger problem afoot.
Singapore’s schools are good! So why can’t they attract good, paying foreign students? Let me ask you–does Singapore’s schools get all of our rejects? Sorry, it’s rude, and not the “Asian” way, but I should ask this anyway.
excellent universities notwithstanding, there must be a reason(s) why Singapore has to force its ASEAN scholars to stay with a bond.
not to mention the other scholars funded with tax dollars.
Actually there are quite a large number of full-fee paying indonesian, thai and PRC students in Singapore…
To a camel living in desert, the world is filled with hot and dry sand.
To a fish living in the depths of the ocean, the world is a wet and dark place.
Being familiar with both sides of the fence, I can understand both viewpoints. However, there is no single truth. There is much to learn if both sides learn to see from the other’s perspective.
mark.eleven has closed his blog. Apparently he was “threatened”. Couldn’t believe this??!
yeah. i wonder who would threaten him
Hmm….not sure what I think about this yet but I would like to point out that while foreigners have to stand at attention when the National Anthem and the pledge are being taken, they do not have to (and are not expected to) sing the Anthem or recite the pledge.
Daniel,
Singapore schools are good because the government says so, not me. Having worked in the system, I must say I am disappointed with it.
That said, I think the issue here is not whether our schools are good but why do people come here, take advantage of the perks willingly knowing what they have signed on for and after that blame Singapore for everything.
It is a matter of taking responsibility for your own actions. One cannot take the good and blame our government for the bad even to the extent of false accusations and running away when confronted. That shows an opportunistic coward at work.
Ingrateful. New word, Singapore style!
Ingrateful idiot: you are certainly what your nick says. Next time before you think of flaming others, please check the dictionary for definition.
Just because you have a limited vocabulary doesn’t mean that the word doesn’t exist…
I thank Daniel for his interesting views about Singapore’s larger image to the outside world.
Our Singapore government has very set views about scholarships and bonds. It is something they have used, tried and something which has increasingly become less effective, if reports over the years, in our media, are used as a gauge.
That said, and back to the main gist of the original post. The ASEAN scholar in question is truly ungrateful. If I were him, I would have been happy and grateful for whatever financial help I can get in my studies. Coming from a country where he is probably discriminated against if he is not a ’son of the earth’. I would expect a little more appreciation for what he is given. I was awarded a scholarship for good academic performance at a British university years ago. I didn’t have to apply for it and it was a small amount, so small it didn’t any difference to the cost my dad has to provide for my studies. But I was happy and grateful for that 50 pounds.
Personally, I hate this legal handcuff thing that the government puts on recipients of scholarship, to locals or foreigners. A better selection process might be to carefully screen the recipients who are judged to be likely contributors who will find joy and happiness staying on in Singapore after their scholarships. Selection of our local scholars should also be on how much the selection process believes that the individual can and will be willing to contribute after benefitting from the scholarships. It is the heart that matters. But alas, like so many other aspects of our dealings with our government, it is grounded in legal framework and a probably water tight contract. Contracts don’t win hearts!
Finally someone has the gut to say it out. Kudos!
But truth are hard to swallow. If Singapore systems are good, it will withstand any criticism. No need bond, no need to even offer this kind of gimmick “scholarship”. Full fee paying students will come in lots if the education is as good as claimed. Think about it.
Well said bluegene. It is a case of “a frog in the coconut shell’. I give due respect to Mark Eleven, though I may not agree to all that he has written. The truth is that’s how he felt. Likewise, I respect mrbiao’s reply from a different prospective.
I do not know what is the intention of mrbiao – is it a discussion? Correct a wrong preception? Invite an arguement? or Let go his frustration? Whatever it is, my impression is that the reply is written with emotion, aggression and personal attack. Well, ‘emotion’ has the tendency of producing illogical thinking., ‘Aggression’ will only drive people away and ‘personal attack’ invites confrontation. Why not ? state your opinion and allow the topic to be discussed. We have plenty to learn from one another.
Mrbiao, I hope you’ll reread your article objectively when you have calm down and see for yourself the inconsitencies to what you believed. You can email me if you want more.
Of course, as with any other issue, it can be very hard to determine who is right and who isn’t.
The main thing that I wanted to point out was how Mark Eleven returned the favour that was given to him with disrespect and even calls it a scam.
The reason for giving a point-for-point rebuttal was simply to point out his lop-sided comments… it doesn’t necessary mean that mine are correct. The purpose of keeping a personal blog is not to express objectiveness. The word personal means those were my personal opinions.
I wrote this article simply to express my opinion that it was inappropriate for Mark Eleven to bite the hand that fed him.
I have no interest in inviting any argument, nor am I interested in enlightening strangers. Neither am I frustrated. Why should I be, when it doesn’t involve me?
Having said all these, I must say that SKL’s comment doesn’t seem any less of a personal attack as he claimed my article was… It is just your subjective opinion that my article was written with “emotion, agression and personal attack”. Afterall, how can one quantify aggression and emotion in plain text?
Anyway, I think that this topic has been over-discussed and people are reading too much into it and trying to dissect my message, far from what my original intention (recap: to express my opinion on how Mark Eleven was biting the hand that fed him) was. Thus, I am closing this for comments.
[...] righty-o. i might be entering the discussion a little late, considering the brouhaha back in february this year about whether the ASEAN scholarships, particularly the pre-university ones, are [...]
[...] extremely negative account of the Asean scholarship. A rebuttal by an irate Singaporean is found here. More positive accounts can be found here, here and here. To me the most balanced account is [...]