A Simple Illustration of Question 9

While commenting on my latest posts on education, a few readers veered into rather theoretical realms. This is unnecessary. After all, it is easy to offer actual, real-life examples.

Here - I'll offer one example.

I have a strong interest in Asian legal systems. A few years ago, I even considered taking a year off from work, to do a Masters in Law at NUS. I checked out the available graduate scholarships at the NUS Law Faculty. Alas, almost all the scholarships were reserved for non-Singaporeans.

That's still the way it is today. See the current list of graduate scholarships here:

(1) Research Scholarship
(2) Graduate Scholarship for ASEAN Nationals (NUS GSA)
(3) Faculty Graduate Scholarship (FGS)
(4) Scholarship for Young Asian Academics
(5) Microsoft Scholarship

The 1st scholarship is open to both Singaporean and foreign applicants.
The 2nd scholarship is open to students from all ASEAN countries, except Singaporeans.
The 3rd scholarship is open to students from anywhere in the world, except Singaporeans.
The 4th scholarship is open to all Asian students, except Singaporeans.
The 5th scholarship is open to students from anywhere in the world, except Singaporeans.

Is it strange that so many Singaporeans feel marginalised in their own country? No, it is not strange at all. It is clear that in our country today, citizenship often turns out to be a liability.

More on the 9th Question

Let's imagine that 20 years ago, you went to NUS and NTU to ask the lecturers the following question - "What is the mission of this university?". I believe that the most common reply would have been something like this: "To provide a good university education for Singaporeans."

But what if you asked the same question today? I believe that the most common reply would be something along the following lines - "To be one of the world's leading universities" or "To develop its global profile and reach".

In other words, the mission changed along the way.

The new goals are not "wrong" or "bad". They are all very worthy aspirations for an educational institution. But once again, if you personalise the question, you will see the implications. If these universities succeed in their goals to become world-class, then they will admit only world-class students (Singaporean, or otherwise). If they admit only world-class students, then many Singaporeans who are not necessarily stupid or incapable, but merely somewhat less than "world-class" will not have an opportunity to study locally.

Thus these Singaporeans will be forced to go overseas for their university education (if they can afford it), or otherwise simply quit school.

For those who do go overseas, there will be also an opportunity to experience life in another country. And these Singaporeans may (quite rightfully) feel grateful that here in a foreign country, there was a foreign university which accepted them, which gave them the chance to grow and gain their higher education - when their own country, Singapore, did not.

Why should we be surprised then, that some of these individuals will choose to stay on in those foreign countries? After all, Singapore failed to provide for them what these foreign countries were able, and willing, to provide.

Interestingly, as Singapore expands its vision of becoming an international medical hub, we may see an analogous situation occurring in the area of healthcare. The mission of healthcare providers in Singapore may shift over time. There will be increasing focus on attracting wealthy patients from other Asian countries. These healthcare providers may become more and more profit-oriented, and less and less focused on any notion about providing good, affiordable healthcare for Singaporeans.

The 9th Question - On Singaporean Students

9 Education: Bright students will be sought after internationally, chipping away at Singapore's talent pyramid at the top. Mr Goh considers this one of the most serious threats to Singapore's long-term survival and says it has to be solved now.

His questions for the Prime Minister, Education Minister, schools and families: How do we bond students going abroad to Singapore, physically if possible, and if not, at least emotionally? How do we ensure most will return home and contribute to Singapore? How do we ensure there will always be a core of honest, able and dedicated Singaporeans to look after the country and their fellow men?

"Stupid Goh," Lee Hsien Loong would reply. "Haven't you noticed? We can just replace all of them with talented foreigners."

Back to the theme of personalising the question. For the individual Singaporean, it's a very good thing to have the kind of skills, knowledge and experience that give you international mobility. You may or may not go - but at least you have that option.

Studying overseas is a good start. At least you get a taste of life in another country.

Happy National Day!

In line with the festive season, here's a poem from my book Two Baby Hands (see sidebar for more details about the book):

NATIONAL DAY PARADE

I had a small part in a
Big show of a great little nation.
My uniformed mates and I were
To march out, swing left,
Turn twice, and get off the grounds
In twenty seconds flat.
Meanwhile the music boomed,
The lasers splashed,
And the darkened crowds hit
A new high of pre-planned,
Programmed excitement.
Later at home, my mother replayed
The video tape five times
But couldn't tell her tiny toy-
Soldier son from any of the rest.
"That one is me," I said,
Pointing at the screen.
I couldn't be sure.
Still we laughed and clapped
Our hands like children,
Knowing that it was not
Supposed to matter.

The above poem was also previously published in an anthology entitled From Boys to Men, which contains poems and prose from 30 Singaporean writers on the theme of National Service. From Boys to Men was edited by Koh Buck Song and Umej Bhatia, and in their introduction to the book, they briefly commented on my poem as follows:

"At times, the solder becomes acutely aware that NS must involve public performances, where there is pride in achievement to be shared with loved ones. And yet the performer himself has come to realise, only too well, that success is sometimes best accomplished through teamwork. And this means not so much the extinguishing, as the irrelevance, of individual identity. Personal aspirations must fall in line, in the parade ground of the larger scheme of things. Gilbert Koh's poem National Day Parade puts this across subtly ...."

What they didn't say is that my poem is also about the artificial engineering of national identity, heheh.

The Second Question: Homes For Singaporeans

"How do you, as leaders, convince Singaporeans of that when they are already living in good-quality public and private housing?"

That question is not a problem for Singapore. Nor is it a problem for Singaporeans.

It is merely a politician's problem. Politicians always have to convince people of this or that. Are their claims actually true? That is a separate issue. The convincing is what the politician needs to achieve, irrespective of the truth of the matter. As I had said in my earlier post, PR and marketing are all part of the game of politics.

But should SM Goh have been so indiscreet? Should he have stated publicly, and in such an explicit manner, his agenda to convince the masses? Well, SM Goh does have his other reasons.

There's a property bubble out there right now, remember. SM Goh is trying to help suck a little air out of the bubble. In other words, he wants to send the message that "Hey, maybe you can stay put right where you are. Maybe you don't really need to move."

But of course, people will always aspire to live in better homes. It's human nature. And of course, there is "good-quality" housing in Singapore. There is even "great-quality" and "superb-quality" housing in Singapore. Whether you live in such housing is another question.

That takes us back to the theme of the personalised question. Most importantly, the individual has to make smart decisions about where to live and what to buy.

And when to buy it.

Incidentally, folks, in deciding whether you can afford a particular property, bear this in mind. The fact that a bank will not grant you a loan is a good indicator that you can't afford it. But the fact that a bank will grant you a loan is not a good indicator that you can afford it.

Remember - in doing its credit appraisal, the bank focuses on the risk that you will default (or be unable to meet your repayments). If the bank is happy to take that risk, then you get your loan. But the bank is not really interested in how hard you might have to save and scrimp and cut down on your other expenses, so that you can make your mortgage repayments.

In other words, the bank doesn't care about how much you might have to compromise your lifestyle, in order to afford your home. That's an assessment you'll have to make for yourself.