Tweet
http://zaobao.com/yl/yl100830_007.shtml
English Translation below:
>>>>>>>>>
The article describes a PRC student whom had once studied in the author’s school. The PRC came to Singapore after being granted a MOE scholarship in 1999. The school arranged a teacher “L” to take care of her in school and also for non-school related issues. The school also found her a godfather(not the mafia boss, it refers to something like a foster parent) and godmother to give her a home-like environment. Under the guidance and support from her teachers and god parents, the girl managed to graduate from a prestigious JC in Singapore, and later she made her way into Harvard University.
Last year, she received a scholarship offer from A*STAR for a Life Sciences phD programme in Harvard. The scholarship was equivalent to 1 million dollars. The PRC girl needed 2 Singaporean guarantors to apply for the scholarship. She approached many people but was rejected umpteen times. At the end, she remembered her teacher “L” and her godparents. So she approached the teacher L:
Teacher L: Do you know why many people do not want to be a surety? It is because there are too many bond breakers nowadays.
PRC Girl: Teacher, rest assured, I will not.
With that affirmation, the teacher decided to help her.
On her godfather’s side, he had already been a guarantor for another student. The godfather eventually sought the help of his friend who worked in the SAF. Despite the girl being a total stranger to him, the SAF guy agreed to be the guarantor without much hesitation.
The last time Teacher L met the PRC girl was in August last year, during the signing of bond. She then went off to the US and never ever contacted her guarantor anymore. Just 2 weeks ago, Teacher L and the SAF guy were informed by a letter from A*STAR that the PRC girl broke her bond and that they had to pay 400k for compensation.
Perhaps the girl had found a better company that was willing to “buy” her over by providing her an allowance and sponsoring the school fees. And perhaps, the Teacher L and SAF guy had to pay a price for being too kind to her. They had indeed paid an unworthy price.
We have always been doubtful of our “first class” education, and issues with bond breakers had always been prevalent. No matter how much our education institutes condemns the behaviour of bond breaking or the numerous criticism from our local media, it can never change the materialistic value of a person. In this materialistic world, policy makers believe that money can buy everything including special priviledges, first class education and most importantly top class foreign talents. However, no one had ever questioned themselves if money could buy the loyalties of those foreign talents.
In reality, when personal gains and morality/ethics are in conflict, the loser is always the latter. This situation has in fact left us in irony. What problems does the very force that had groom the top 10%, 5% and possibly 1% of talented individuals possibly have? When we teach our children about being socially responsible for their own actions, shouldn’t we be adjusting the rules of our policies to punish those bond breakers? The least we should have done is to let those youngsters know that there are issues that cannot be resolved with money, particularly when morals are involved. It is time we start reviewing the way we grant scholarships.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I can only think:
English Translation below:
>>>>>>>>>
The article describes a PRC student whom had once studied in the author’s school. The PRC came to Singapore after being granted a MOE scholarship in 1999. The school arranged a teacher “L” to take care of her in school and also for non-school related issues. The school also found her a godfather(not the mafia boss, it refers to something like a foster parent) and godmother to give her a home-like environment. Under the guidance and support from her teachers and god parents, the girl managed to graduate from a prestigious JC in Singapore, and later she made her way into Harvard University.
Last year, she received a scholarship offer from A*STAR for a Life Sciences phD programme in Harvard. The scholarship was equivalent to 1 million dollars. The PRC girl needed 2 Singaporean guarantors to apply for the scholarship. She approached many people but was rejected umpteen times. At the end, she remembered her teacher “L” and her godparents. So she approached the teacher L:
Teacher L: Do you know why many people do not want to be a surety? It is because there are too many bond breakers nowadays.
PRC Girl: Teacher, rest assured, I will not.
With that affirmation, the teacher decided to help her.
On her godfather’s side, he had already been a guarantor for another student. The godfather eventually sought the help of his friend who worked in the SAF. Despite the girl being a total stranger to him, the SAF guy agreed to be the guarantor without much hesitation.
The last time Teacher L met the PRC girl was in August last year, during the signing of bond. She then went off to the US and never ever contacted her guarantor anymore. Just 2 weeks ago, Teacher L and the SAF guy were informed by a letter from A*STAR that the PRC girl broke her bond and that they had to pay 400k for compensation.
Perhaps the girl had found a better company that was willing to “buy” her over by providing her an allowance and sponsoring the school fees. And perhaps, the Teacher L and SAF guy had to pay a price for being too kind to her. They had indeed paid an unworthy price.
We have always been doubtful of our “first class” education, and issues with bond breakers had always been prevalent. No matter how much our education institutes condemns the behaviour of bond breaking or the numerous criticism from our local media, it can never change the materialistic value of a person. In this materialistic world, policy makers believe that money can buy everything including special priviledges, first class education and most importantly top class foreign talents. However, no one had ever questioned themselves if money could buy the loyalties of those foreign talents.
In reality, when personal gains and morality/ethics are in conflict, the loser is always the latter. This situation has in fact left us in irony. What problems does the very force that had groom the top 10%, 5% and possibly 1% of talented individuals possibly have? When we teach our children about being socially responsible for their own actions, shouldn’t we be adjusting the rules of our policies to punish those bond breakers? The least we should have done is to let those youngsters know that there are issues that cannot be resolved with money, particularly when morals are involved. It is time we start reviewing the way we grant scholarships.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I can only think:
Comment