TR EMERITUS

Prologue: The unfortunate passing of Dr Allan Ooi out of sheer frustration and utter despair over his scholarship bond had opened a Pandora's box, throwing up more questions on the scholarship system in Singapore. Young, promising and academically gifted Singaporeans are often offered prestigious government scholarships to sponsor their tertiary education upon completion of their GCE 'A' levels after which they are obliged to serve the respective organizations for a period of time. The controversy surrounding scholarship breakers is nothing new. There were many stories in the past about scholarship breakers being publicly shamed and even threatened with lawsuits. Do these young people know what they are in for when they pen their signatures down to sign away the most productive years of their lives? Should the authorities exercise more flexibility in allowing disgruntled scholars to terminate their contracts earlier? Is it ethical or feasible to keep an unhappy scholar solely for the sake of fulfilling the terms as stipulated under the bond while depriving of his/her right to seek out better employment prospects? Let us hear from three readers who posted excellent comments on our blog:   By Agape Xue When I first penned my thoughts and feelings on Wed, 11th March on what I knew were factual revelation of circumstances causing Allan’s death, I did feel that what I was reading before from the mainstream and other sub journals were nothing more than red herrings and wild guesses, some were insinuating and degrading, others unsubstantiated and finger pointing at wrong targets. Whether or not there were hidden agenda from the official channels to side track the issue, hoping to avoid having to explain what could be more inside stories of the ways things work in various administrative units, I am not sure, but I do hope time and justice will cause to reveal more truth. This is also the wish of the deceased to want highlighted, alongside with other reasons of his death. The public needs to know the truth. This is not just a personal matter of the deceased or his family. It is a serious problem, a social problem, now a social stigma, and it involves maginalization and suicide. The society need to reflect on this. You cant just say,, oh this is just an individual issue, just the foolish act of an over pampered child, even though my first thread could have been somewhat emotionally structured to be misconstrued. So, after considering the need to protect the confidentiality and the sensitivity of the deceased’s family so there will not be further hurt caused to them, we could now look at the subject with a different perspective. The deceased has through his death blew whistle to what is considered, in his own view, but somewhat supported by other contributors to this blog, of possible flaws in the way scholarship programmes are being planned, structured, offered , and administered. Would the promotion of such scholarship to bright scholars at the age of 18 be looked at in a similar light akin to the selling of Lehman minibond bonds in the financial markets? Should there be more control on the way these are being offered, and that there should be more explanations and time given to the potential candidates to think over?? Is there cooling period for one to opt out of a contract once it is signed?? Are there provisions for breaking bonds?? I think this may be time for the relevant authority to review and evaluate on subject. Now, the facts have all surfaced, Allan has paid for his mistake with his own death. In his mind, he thought he was performing hara-kiri to attenuate further shame that can be brought to himself, his family or his fellow doctors and scholars. He did it honorably, at least he thought he did. There is no need to comment anymore unfavorably against him. Let him rest in peace. What is still outstanding in this issue is an answer from SAF…They owe the public a reply. And a honest reply.   By BBRWGAL I am a health care worker and have many many colleagues who are bonded under the Scholarship scheme. Many of such colleagues live in misery and are silently resentful of the situation they are in. It is a fact that they have chosen to sign the bond with eyes wide open but at 17 or 18yrs old, what do you really know about signing your life away. Many of such scholars continue to serve their bond because they do not have the money to buy themselves out or perhaps they need the $ for livelihood. But my question is why does the government find the need to bond people when ultimately the bonded scholar is just waiting for the bond to expire and move on with its life. Clearly people who leave the minute their bond expires is not interested or motivated to continue in the position they were in. Is the government incapable of recruiting people who are happy to work in the various positions offered on their own accord? Do we always have to chain people to something to fill positions? Doesn’t the nature of a bond inherently discourage people from doing what they really want to do and what they are really good at? It may not necessarily mean that a person dislikes what they are doing but it also doesn’t mean that this person needed to be chained to it and have no autonomy at deciding what he/she may be interested to do within the realm of his/her work. I understand when Dr Allen Ooi mentioned that life was like a prison for him because being on a bond doesn’t just mean working in a job you dislike but also being able to do nothing about it whilst your supervisors or superiors may treat you indifferently because they know that there is nothing you can do about it. I can imagine what he must have felt a 15-18 yr bond is like a 15-18 yr sentence and when he is done with his bond, the best years of his life are also over at 40+. It is pointless to compare him to someone of a disadvantaged background because he is obviously not and because he wasn’t it probably led to more misery because he didn’t even need to do this in the first place for livelihood. I am not sure why the SAF bond was unbreakable but i am sure if it was a matter of money, his parents would probably have supported him and I am sure some banks would have gladly given him a loan to help him out. one of my colleagues took out a big loan just to get herself out so she could marry her British husband. Ultimately he must have felt that there was no way out for him and honestly if the bond really was unbreakable like he had put it. I can really understand but do not condone such action of suicide but the feeling of helplessness and living the next 18 yrs of nothingness may just have been as bad. I think our government needs to understand that ultimately getting teenagers to sign their lives away at 18 is something that should be proceeded only with caution because circumstances change, ideas change, personalities change, ideals change ( especially more so with tertiary education). It is unreasonable to expect that a teenager will be able to see that far ahead and project what he/she might not like to do. Many of my colleagues who signed the bond thought it was a good idea to lock themselves in a job before they graduate since ” they need a job anyway” but it is really a totally different scenario when you are compelled to be in a situation that you do not want to be in and can do nothing about it. It really is no different to being in prison. And as the late Dr Allen Ooi puts it "To the people within the system, please change it to better yourselves and the future generations instead of creating a self perpetuating cycle of at best painful obligation and at worse utter despair" I still think Allen chose an extreme measure to display his displeasure and to get out of the situation he was in. I urge the authorities to think about the scholarships they are offering to the next generation of scholars, ample counseling and measures need to be taken to ensure the same tragedy doesn’t repeat itself.   By xtiyroh After reading many posts, I feel compelled to express my thoughts and opinion on this whole matter.It is really is pointless to tie someone down to a government organization down when he/she is merely working to finish the bond, instead of joyfully contributing to the organization. What exactly is the point in wasting the prime years of a person’s life, when that someone could be doing something more mearningful elsewhere? Can’t our appreciation of the government and their efforts be expressed in other ways other than serving in a government organization? Wouldn’t working overseas and representing singapore in the international arena be a more useful and tangible expression of our gratitude? ( that is, if we choose to work overseas) I just do not see the point in forcing someone to come back and work for the government organization when he or she can be contributing more effectively elsewhere, while flying the Singapore flag with pride. don’t people do best when they are doing something they are passionate about, something they love? And it is very true that as a 18-19 year old, you really are, pretty clueless at what you really want in life: you don’t understand the severity of your decision to sign on the dotted line. going overseas to study, especially in the US, really opens your eyes to the world. the freedom of studying what you want, the opportunities to do research and the wide variety of subject courses offered enlightens you on what you actually are good at, what you love, and what you can do to help the world. (please pardon the idealism) In addition, I know of some who had broken their bonds to seek better opportunities elsewhere, but would really want to contribute to the government, and can’t, as they have been labelled as bond breakers. I just hope that there would be more consideration taken into this matter because not all who break their bonds to pursue other ventures are selfish, unappreciative Singaporeans. maybe they wanted a change of course subject to study another subject they are really interested in, but they were not allowed to by their scholarship agency? I’m not trying to undermine or condemn the scholarship system, but I am just hoping that there will be more flexibility given in the future, in terms of the switching of course subjects to study, the breaking of bonds and the bond term itself. I think inherently, many Singaporeans, even those who are part of the brain drain, still view Singapore as home, and would love to contribute back. but unless we are given the opportunity to, the brain drain will continue.  Read More →

Dear Dr Teo Ho Pin cc Minister Lim Boon Heng cc Mr Tan Pheng Hock I caught your interview on TV last night. You talked about how you being the political appointee and therefore were not aware of the bonuses of your CDC staff, who are from either PA or WDA. Because market is bad and I have a lot of time these days to surf the net, I believe you could be responding to rumours circulating on the internet regarding the 7 months of bonuses received by two staff at Northwest CDC. As the boss at Northwest CDC, I think you have the prerogative to decide how that place is run, including operating that place with no idea how bonuses are being paid out to staff. On the other hand, I suppose you have to forgive some petty people who are not happy with organisations that pay obscene salaries after they lost money for their shareholders. As your job is to help people, I suppose you could have also taken the step beyond appearing on TV answering questions, to find out if it was true that your staff had received 7 months bonuses. If it is yes, then say yes. If it is no, then say no. Saying “I don’t know” kind of get me worried whether if you are on top of things at Northwest CDC. But perhaps you are busy with other more important priorities. I fully understand. Read rest of article here  Read More →

世界上真正重要的东西是肉眼看不见的。                                                                                            ——《小王子》作者圣修伯里             人总是忘不了过去的童真岁月，即使当年的家已不在了，一般念念不忘都是儿时的玩伴、令人回顾的事物与地区风貌。网站上提起重拾“甘榜精神” 的文章渐渐多了起来。           “甘榜精神”是对过去村落纯朴生活的概括术语、一个以和谐共处为大前提的互助精神。同村人守望相助、和谐共处。过去，住在同一个甘榜的私会党徒是不会连同别的私会党徒来欺负自己村的人的。         今天，碰见一个对童年生活很怀旧的大男孩，他说当年从里巴巴里路搬到黄埔组屋区之后就对这里有了深深的眷恋，虽然长大后搬走了，但是最近还是选择搬回这里。忘不了黄埔吧杀和马里士他路的美食。         黄埔老社区仅剩的不止是老年人，黄埔区有许多老街坊的集体记忆。         黄埔区是因为纪念黄埔先生胡亚基而命名的。人们称他为名称黄埔先生，他的祖籍出生地是中国广州的黄埔，他也是一个早期的企业家（1950年代）与在1867年受委英殖民地政府立法委员第一个亚洲华人。我们现在在克拉码头还能看到他的“黄埔冰屋”的旧址。         黄埔区的老街坊有五十年代就住在这里的，遇到一位潮籍老先生告诉我过去这里有蕹菜园、有藤厂。我仿佛记得七十年代黄浦河还浮着好多的藤。这里制作我们小时候爱坐小藤椅，在上面拍照爱用的圆形藤椅，用粗藤制成的老人用的拐杖，藤制沙发也是热带地区的时尚。           有个说广东话老街坊告诉这里也叫“芋叶塘”，五十年代黄埔区曾经刮大风，把锌板木屋吹得东歪西斜、这里属低洼地区，下大雨时也经常淹水，金吉路附近的路段都漫了水。猪仔也泡涨在水中，成了腐尸。           在马里士他路就以Joseph.Balestier为名，他也是美国驻新加坡的领事。1834年他租用开发了这片1000英亩的土地来种植甘蔗园。            马里士他路路口的梧槽大伯公庙还是香烟缭绕，二月初九日还庆祝虎爷伯的生日，这个为民间祈福平反冤屈的神明。这里保留了古老的大戏台，过去在庆祝大节日时演出大戏或木偶戏。           在马里士他路的乌桥吧杀最近翻新成为美食中心，入口处还放置了“新加坡拉”狮子的塑像。           位于亚佛路和大人路那本地商人、先贤筹资救援中国的孙中山先生， 1906年，支持革命的张永福先生将他的别墅“晚晴园”送给孙中山先生。（原名为“明珍庐”，建于1880年的由一商人建造该他的爱人明珍所建，张永福先生购下别墅为母亲颐养天年，改名“晚晴园”），张永福后来将它转让，6个商人收购将后将它交给新加坡中华总商会保管理与保留，中华总商会把这座别墅改建成“孙中山南洋纪念馆”。1997年，由新加坡中华总商会耗资800万元翻新。2008年7月获得古迹保留局重新修葺，这是对历史建筑的还原尊重与加强社区凝聚力的举措。       （自1973年，政府通过古迹保留局有计划的保留有历史价值的建筑，列出一批“国家古迹建筑”。在2008年3月11日宣布，接下来的5年内也拨款500万为“国家古迹基金”，从新修缮民间宗教及非营利机构有集体记忆的古建筑及旧街区。）           附近的缅甸玉佛寺的街名 如Irrawaddy Rd，PerguRd 人等、因新缅甸移民的融入又形成另一种社区风情。           旧的邵氏马来影城于1947年建立在惹兰安拔士（No 8，Jalan Ampas），50年代至70年代，造就了P.Ramlee的演艺与导演的辉煌生涯，也制作了70多部影片与200首电影歌曲销售东南亚。          旧址在St George Estate的 黄埔中学在华文中学没落失去中渐渐被人淡忘。但是提起那里的师长同学、旧校址，总是会令校友念念不忘。          相信吴韦材也是有心人，他在今年二月十五日每星期日早上10点半在黄埔艺术站举办“往事一起回味”，介绍三、四十年代的旧歌手、歌曲，肯定获得中年人热衷参与。 Source: seventhdusk  Read More →