Found this in my inbox too. The writer requested for anonymity, hence I'll just call him Mr Chia:"Hi Mr Wang,Nothing new here, so I won't say very much. The "same tuition grant, as long as you work 3 years in Singapore" rule has been around for ages. However, in bad economic times (and those are the kind of times we're currently heading into), a new ironic twist emerges.
A very good morning to you. I understand that you have stopped blogging on sociopolitical issues but there are some burning questions to ask which I don't really understand. I am aware of your busy schedule so I shall keep my questions short.
I am currently a student in one of the local universities. I was shocked to hear that foreign students who are not scholars are currently being granted the tuition grant at the same rate as Singaporean students. This came from a conversation between myself and a few foreign friends so I daren't say it is applicable to all.
Furthermore, the only obligation they are required to serve is that of working in Singapore for 3 years upon graduation. Isn't that ironic as Singaporean males have to serve National Service and continue with this liability upon graduation and etc.
I guess you know my point. I wish to clarify about the differences between being a Singaporean Citizen, a PR as well as a pure foreigner. What are the differences in terms of benefits (as well as the liabilities)?
These questions are fuelled from a conversation between myself and a few friends of mine who are high fliers from top schools too. Amongst them are scholars who don't think they'd be staying in Singapore upon graduation."
The fresh grads (Singaporean as well as foreign) will all start looking for jobs in Singapore at the same time. There won't be enough jobs to go around. But the foreign grads will be forced to stick around and keep looking, because of the 3-year rule.
Finally their finances will be pushed to the breaking point, and they will appeal to the government: "Please exempt me from this rule, because I've tried my best for so long, and I still can't get a job here in Singapore. I want to go home to China / India / Malaysia / Vietnam".
Then the Singapore government will say, "Oh very well, I release you from this obligation." So the foreign chap packs up his bags and leaves Singapore for good.
The silver lining in his cloud is still very silver. In other words, the foreign student still gets a pretty good deal. After all, for 3 or 4 years, his university education was heavily subsidised by Singaporean taxpayers. After he gets his degree, he just packs up and leaves .... with the blessing of the Singapore government. Wowee.
When discussing such issues, some naive Singaporean will chirp out, "Oh, but this happens everywhere. For example, Harvard University would also give out bond-free scholarships to foreigners."
Yes, silly, but Harvard University doesn't make the American taxpayer pay for that. Harvard comes up with its money.
33 comments:
Let me share about my experience when I was studying for my master degree in NTU. the course is a communication course. There are about 40 students in the class. Guess what, students from China, Phillipine, Indonesia and India took almost 30 places. the rest were made up of local students.
You may argue that these students are the creme de la creme in their country right? Wrong!!!! Those china student can't utter a single english sentence wifout gramatical error. and mind you, they are from Beijing Uni (Bei Da) and Fudan (those uni in china). the worse is yet to come. these students were again heavily subsidized and wifout any obligations!! (wat the f***)
the most infuriating thing was the lecturer they demand from us (Singapore student) certain level of english proficiency while the rest of the class, they were not inclinded to english as their language...
Pls lah, tis is a master degree class, not undergrad mind you. and the lecturers are talking this kind of rubbish.. even the dean agree to it...(f*** him)
after i graduated, i would not want to have anything to do wif NTU. there was one time a poor chap called me up (regarding alma mater) and asked if I would like to donate. I told him if the $$ i give were to benefit Singaporeans, I would definitely give willingly. but judging from what and how I was treated during my NTU days, I told him that I would reconsider.
Im singaporean, a recent graduate and am looking for a job for the past 3 months.
As for the foreigners, i know of people who have just walked off from their bond. From what they tell me, basically, the main thing is that they will not be able to get any resident status like a PR or citizenship in the future. Thats the worst thing they have to face.
Welcome to Singapore. A place where they treat the foreigners better than the locals.
The way I see it, all Singaporean males who have served their NS and work in Singapore for 3 years after graduation have a right to be given free tertiary education (backpay when all the criterias are satisfied).
Considering that the government has ascertained that>15K SGD/year of grant (per foreign student) is well worth the amount of benefits we will yield from these "talents" working in Singapore for 3 years after graduation, I would think it is be reasonable that 2years + 10 reservist cycles, coupled with 3 years of working in Singapore upon graduation will be worth the extra 5-6K a year of tuition.
Singapore can afford this. Now.. which MP will fight for this welfare that 50% of the voters will be grateful for.. None?
Also, Harvard does not give away as much as 20% of its undergraduate spots to foreigners: only 8% of Harvard undergraduates are foreigners. Furthermore, since Harvard does not offer financial aid to those rich enough to pay their own way, some of these foreigners will be paying full tuition fees. Thus the percentage of subsidised foreign students in their undergraduate population is much lower than that in our local universities.
Mr Wang is right of course that the fact that Harvard is private makes their aid to foreigners moot anyway. But in no way does Harvard 'help' foreign students anywhere to the same extent that our local universities do.
Hi Mr Chia,
You asked about "the differences between being a Singaporean Citizen, a PR as well as a pure foreigner.. in terms of benefits (as well as the liabilities)?".
Since you have more or less answered the question yourself for those who are students, I would like to answer you in the context of university professors:
- Foreign Professors will not receive CPF contribution from NUS but NUS will pay them *more* in the form of liquid cash!
- PR Professors need to pay CPF, but can withdraw it any time they wish, upon giving up their PR status.
- Singaporean Professors need to pay cpf, cannot withdraw it until 65 (or whatever the new draw-down age the government decides), and has to serve NS liability till 40 or 50 years old.
You seem very surprised. Perhaps you are not familiar with our new national anthem? Someone has made a video of it and I featured it on my blog. Enjoy!
I am a student studying in SIM. I have many friends whom mostly are Singaporean that they attained reasonably well “A” level grades that does not allow them to have a place or give them opportunities to study in the field that they want in the local universities.
Recently, I overheard a conversation between 3 friends saying that even a student with a mixture of As and Bs in their report card might mean that he or she will get into a course you want. They started to talk about the foreigners who took up their places and so on. At that moment, I felt that it was a dream for the girls to get a place there. I believe there are more of such cases.
Next, there are many students in SIM who are very active in student activities. However, when comes to organizing an activities, the first possible constraint would be space; space to conduct activities, space for meeting, space for food.
These people are Singapore citizens. One of them could be the future leader of Singapore. Should this be the way most of the average if not above average type of citizens (in term of intellectual) are taken care of? This policy of given the scholarship to the foreigners is already not something new. Although I am disgusted, there is nothing I can do.
Since National Service and globalization don’t jell well, there must be a good mix. My point of view is there should be a balance between nationalism and globalization in Singapore. Hence, building up patriotism should not end after “A” levels or diploma studies. This must continue to university(local)level (SIM is still a private education provider).
Regarding issue, our g will then talk about globalization; the feedback given by the people would be none other then globalization. As you can see, on one hand, the government wants the people to be patriot and on the other hand they must accept equal competition from the foreigners. Don’t you think Singaporean have to work doubly hard. Most of my friends in SIM are not planning to stay in Singapore. What are the reasons? Globalization? Lack of national identity? I don’t know. I hope that there will be changes in the attitude towards this group of people. As, for me, I don’t wish my future generation to grow in this kind of unhealthy system. I vote for a change. Till then I still keep my mind open to immigrate.
tiredman
@ponder stibbons
"But in no way does Harvard 'help' foreign students anywhere to the same extent that our local universities do."
Quite the opposite - all financial aid is based on your parents' income, and to a lesser extent, assets and debts. The amount of aid is usually very substantial and covers the school fees, dormitory accommodation, food and living expenses, plus a few other allowances here and there. This is especially true for a foreign student whose parents will probably not make as much as the average US family.
---------------
From http://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/fact_sheet.htm
Who receives financial aid at Harvard?
Over half of all undergraduates receive need-based Harvard Scholarship aid, totaling over $130 million.
One fifth of families qualify for the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative, where parents with total incomes less than $60,000 are expected to pay nothing.
Parents with total incomes between $60,000 and $180,000, and typical assets, are now asked to pay an average of up to 10% of their income.
Foreign students have the same access to financial aid funding as U.S. citizens, including the Initiative outlined above.
Two thirds of students work during the academic year.
---------------
How many students do you know have parents making more than US$60,000 a year?
But another point to realise is this: Offering financial aid increases the chances that students who receive such aid will be much more likely to donate back an even larger amount in future when they make it big. In addition, the cash for the financial aid actually comes from the returns on Harvard's investments, which as you might know are very sizeable. It's a winning formula.
This policy is typical of the way policies are made in Singapore. They commit the fallcy of "affirming the consequent"
Some government scholar visits Harvard university trying to find out why are they world class.
At Harvard, they realize that they have many foreign undergrads in their campus.
The govt scholar then thinks, "Aha, the reason why Harvard is world class must be because they have many foreign students!"
So this scholar returns to Singapore and say, "NUS, NTU, I set you a five year target of making sure at least 20% of your students are foreigners."
The universities have no choice but to figure out a way to attract foreigners. The easiest way is to throw money at them.
And we are still wondering why our universities are not world class even after the foreign students come...
I deem that almost any contribution into the alma mater funding pool would normally correspond with the level of pride shared by the alumni. Havard whilst being a classical example might not be applicable to most academic institutions in Singapore.
The division between foreigners and locals is a common feature in most higher education institution across many jurisdictions, especially in the field of fees payment and academic credibility. In the Singapore context, the consistent bridging exercise to balance such elements might have been over performed by the government to an extend where citizens are beginning to question the value of their citizenship.
I do not have any suggestion for this phenomenon but in my mind, I ponder whether there's any telling indication that a homogeneous approach to granting such subsidies, citizen and foreigners alike, would be the way forward to progress?
Eugene,
Clearly you are incapable of understanding plain English, or you were too lazy to read my entire comment and simply picked on a sentence you disliked. If you had read my comment with any care, you would have seen that I made the point that Harvard offers financial aid only to those who need it. Foreign students who can afford to pay their full fees have to pay their full fees. Furthermore, the percentage of foreigners in the undergraduate population of Harvard is only 8%. We can therefore conclude that less than 8% of Harvard's undergraduate population receives financial aid.
Contrast that with Singapore where most foreign undergraduates are here on taxpayer-funded scholarships, and where foreigners make up 20% of the undergraduate population.
Also, many Singaporean students who manage to get into places like Harvard come from upper-middle class or upper class families that make more than US$60,000 a year (= S$90,000 a year = $7500 a month, which is easily achievable in households where both parents are working professionals). At the elite private US university I went to, there were about 10 Singaporean undergraduates a year whose parents paid for everything. There were also plenty of rich kids from places like Hong Kong, Japan and Korea.
In any case, my emphasis was on the percentage of foreigners receiving such aid, as part of the total undergraduate population.
Eugene,
"But another point to realise is this: Offering financial aid increases the chances that students who receive such aid will be much more likely to donate back an even larger amount in future when they make it big. In addition, the cash for the financial aid actually comes from the returns on Harvard's investments, which as you might know are very sizeable. It's a winning formula."
I don't think the object of giving out scholarships to foreign undergraduates is to increase the chances of getting more future donations from them.
Medical and law students are probably the most financially successful segment of the undergraduate population after graduation but relatively little financial aid or scholarships are given to them by the local universities.
Also, in absolute numbers, most of the top academic students in our local universities are local while the majority of the undergraduate scholarship holders are non-locals. Clearly, these scholarships are given out on the basis of the recipient being non-locals and not for reasons like increased donation to the alma mater and pure academic ability.
@ponder stibbons
Please be civil. You don't even have to be from an elite US university to do that.
Anyway, you wrote
"But in no way does Harvard 'help' foreign students anywhere to the same extent that our local universities do."
I still disagree. It isn't appropriate to look at the percentage of students in the entire undergraduate cohort who are foreign and receive financial aid as you're trying to do; it's far more meaningful to look at only the foreign students and see which percentage of them receive financial aid, and how much. And if you do so you'll see how it's likely that Harvard does in fact help foreign students to a greater extent than local universities.
You also wrote, "We can therefore conclude that less than 8% of Harvard's undergraduate population receives financial aid."
Of course the real figure is closer to 60%, since US citizens are awarded financial aid based on the same criteria as well, but you "corrected" that in your next comment.
I don't know which university you went to, but Harvard (along with very few others) is unique in offering financial aid to every undergraduate. The overwhelming majority of US universities actually have very little financial aid for foreign students, and foreign applicants who say they will require financial support from teh university have a greatly reduced chance of being accepted, which will have contributed to the phenomenon you described.
@fox
"I don't think the object of giving out scholarships to foreign undergraduates is to increase the chances of getting more future donations from them."
I think it is part (not all) of the reason, at least in the context of Harvard. And this is not just for foreign undergraduates there, local (US) undergraduates too.
eugene,
it's far more meaningful to look at only the foreign students and see which percentage of them receive financial aid, and how much. And if you do so you'll see how it's likely that Harvard does in fact help foreign students to a greater extent than local universities.
Actually, virtually all foreign undergraduates in our local universities receive aid in the form of tuition grants and scholarships directly and indirectly from the Singapore government. No foreign undergraduate pays the sticker price regardless of his/her family's income level.
Furthermore, financial aid in Singapore for foreign undergraduates do not include loans or work. For Harvard, financial aid can include loans and some form of work.
Does that aid include housing, food, daily expenses and so on? If so then I have to concede the point.
(As for loans, if I'm not wrong Harvard stopped giving them out a couple of years ago and replaced the loan component with grants. They're still available, but now quite unnecessary.)
We subsidise foreign students, yup. It is a sort of "service" or as the Chinese say -- for building guanxi. If you want to know details, just ask any teacher who's been involved in exchange programs--getting students here to go overseas (e.g. China) and students in the other country to come here. Ask them who pays how much.
with regard to comments from Eugene and ponder stibbons:
You are not comparing apples to apples. The both of you will go on exchanging responses to each other because both of you are right to a certain extent.
Please remember that we are talking about HARVARD and NUS/NTU here. If you were a Harvard grad, you would/could flaunt it anywhere in the world and your education qualities (real or otherwise) would be recognized. However, you can NEVER do the same with a NUS/NTU education.
(For those who are about to shoot me down on my last statement, travel and work round the world before you make any negative comments about what I just said. Singapore (and her universities) are not even close to as important as how our wonderful government portray them to be.)
Anyway, sorry, I was distracted, back to the point. Harvard uses it's financial aid to attract foreign students who, upon graduation, move on AND DON'T HAVE TO BE STUCK IN THE US. They spread their name that way.
Singapore on the other hand attracts foreign students to keep them here. People don't like to feel like hostages. So, they take the grants and financial aid, use it to obtain their degrees/post degrees and find every way to escape the imprisonment. Because they "escaped the imprisonment", the sense of loyalty is no longer there and when they go out to the working world, wherever they may be, they don't advertise that they are a product of a Singapore university. Harvard and many other top foreign universities love the fact that you go back to your home country and excel there. Things are done very differently.
Therefore, because of the difference in attitude, the usage of how financial aid is granted between Harvard and NUS/NTU cannot be compared.
Another point that was neglected, a Harvard education is in the range of US$45,000/annum (tuition and fees only, living expenses and books not included yet), maybe more. A NUS/NTU education is nowhere close to that. Harvard has more incentive to provide financial aid.
Lastly, a short story I coincidentally just heard. I was talking to a bunch of lecturers from various local tertiary institutions. I had just met them so I don't know anyone of them well. To the person, they all said that the foreigners entering our tertiary education system are cheating us blind and the government doesn't do anything to stop them. Many of them are granted financial aid but with a 3-5 yr employment bond after. One of the ways to "escape" the bond is to proof that one is unable to find employment (I think the time period is 3 months). This is a black and white issue, meaning, if they show a whole bunch of decline letters, they are freed of their bond to work here. So, they all apply for jobs that are WAY over their qualifications and once they have achieved their quota of rejections, they present it to whomever the authorities are and off they go, back to their motherland... maybe with a "Thank you Singapore" at Changi Airport. Most of the time, with just a snicker. One lecturer estimates the number of people who avoid fulfilling their bonds to be as high as 90%.
That's where our tax money goes... that's why we need ERP to subsidize the shortfall.
with regard to comments from Eugene and ponder stibbons:
You are not comparing apples to apples. The both of you will go on exchanging responses to each other because both of you are right to a certain extent.
Please remember that we are talking about HARVARD and NUS/NTU here. If you were a Harvard grad, you would/could flaunt it anywhere in the world and your education qualities (real or otherwise) would be recognized. However, you can NEVER do the same with a NUS/NTU education.
(For those who are about to shoot me down on my last statement, travel and work round the world before you make any negative comments about what I just said. Singapore (and her universities) are not even close to as important as how our wonderful government portray them to be.)
Anyway, sorry, I was distracted, back to the point. Harvard uses it's financial aid to attract foreign students who, upon graduation, move on AND DON'T HAVE TO BE STUCK IN THE US. They spread their name that way.
Singapore on the other hand attracts foreign students to keep them here. People don't like to feel like hostages. So, they take the grants and financial aid, use it to obtain their degrees/post degrees and find every way to escape the imprisonment. Because they "escaped the imprisonment", the sense of loyalty is no longer there and when they go out to the working world, wherever they may be, they don't advertise that they are a product of a Singapore university. Harvard and many other top foreign universities love the fact that you go back to your home country and excel there. Things are done very differently.
Therefore, because of the difference in attitude, the usage of how financial aid is granted between Harvard and NUS/NTU cannot be compared.
Another point that was neglected, a Harvard education is in the range of US$45,000/annum (tuition and fees only, living expenses and books not included yet), maybe more. A NUS/NTU education is nowhere close to that. Harvard has more incentive to provide financial aid.
Lastly, a short story I coincidentally just heard. I was talking to a bunch of lecturers from various local tertiary institutions. I had just met them so I don't know anyone of them well. To the person, they all said that the foreigners entering our tertiary education system are cheating us blind and the government doesn't do anything to stop them. Many of them are granted financial aid but with a 3-5 yr employment bond after. One of the ways to "escape" the bond is to proof that one is unable to find employment (I think the time period is 3 months). This is a black and white issue, meaning, if they show a whole bunch of decline letters, they are freed of their bond to work here. So, they all apply for jobs that are WAY over their qualifications and once they have achieved their quota of rejections, they present it to whomever the authorities are and off they go, back to their motherland... maybe with a "Thank you Singapore" at Changi Airport. Most of the time, with just a snicker. One lecturer estimates the number of people who avoid fulfilling their bonds to be as high as 90%.
That's where our tax money goes... that's why we need ERP to subsidize the shortfall.
Ever heard of biennial donation. Someone told me that if you are a foreigner, all you need to do is fill up the biennial donation form from MOE, indicate the amount you wish to donate. With a decent sum of 10-20k or even more, you will be guaranteed a place in NUS/NTU. Is this true?
"Finally their finances will be pushed to the breaking point, and they will appeal to the government: "Please exempt me from this rule, because I've tried my best for so long, and I still can't get a job here in Singapore. I want to go home to China / India / Malaysia / Vietnam".
Then the Singapore government will say, "Oh very well, I release you from this obligation." So the foreign chap packs up his bags and leaves Singapore for good."
Is this something you know that had happened or just a speculation?
moomooman,
The MOE policy during my time was that the tuition grant recipients would be discharged from their bond obligations if they could show documentary proof that they could not find employment within 6 months of graduation.
eugene,
Foreign undergraduate scholarship recipients get all expenses paid - books, housing, tuition, etc. They also receive priority in university housing. Roughly half of the foreign undergraduates (~9.5 to 10 percent of the total undergraduate population) in our local universities are scholarship recipients.
In contrast, of the locals who make up 80 percent of the undergraduate population, only 5 out of the 80 percent are on any scholarships.
I can't say for all nationalities, but as far as I know, a very high percentage of Malaysians who have studied in Singapore ended up staying in Singapore for good, some even converted to citizens.
I don't have any personal reasons against the subsidies.
It is true that foreign students can also apply for tuition grants. They are guaranteed on-campus housing for 2 years. I see nothing wrong with the second; they don't have a home in Singapore. I never thought much about the tuition grant either. You must admit that some of them are pretty talented and I think if they come to regard Singapore as their home; it'd be great. My lab partner is one such foreign scholar. Despite the grumbles about skewing the bell-curve, I think there is a definite advantage in diverse student population. Also, I am from the NUS (FoS) and I think there aren't a lot of other singaporeans who are willing to major in Physics. Without foreign students, I think my class will be awfully small.
I think that the ladies tend to be less unhappy about it.
The Singaporean men however are more likely to feel it. As they step into NTU for their 1st year, they see that their foreign JC ex-classmates are entering their final year.
Next the Singaporean man tries to apply for a hostel place. However all his foreign ex-JC classmates have taken up the places. So the Singaporean man has to spend 3 hours a day travelling back and forth between home and school (you know where NTU is, don't you).
Or if he does get a place, he learns that to keep it, he has to spend dozens of hours a month to gather the necessary points. His foreign ex-JC classmate does not need to, and can spend all that extra time studying for his exams.
Etc.
With the declining population and all, I'm sure the government would have done a cost analysis study to see if the output would outweigh the input.
Unless there's a better idea. Not much could be done about it.
What declining population? The population in Singapore has grown by half a million in the last 7 years!
If you were a Harvard grad, you would/could flaunt it anywhere in the world and your education qualities (real or otherwise) would be recognized. However, you can NEVER do the same with a NUS/NTU education.
And why so? Is it the Universities' fault? Or is it the Alumni fault? Or is it the gahmen fault? Even after NUS is ranked top 30 for a few years, people still think our own Universities screwed up.
Sorry to digress, but surely, if we correct this image issue, foreigners will be willing to pay instead of taking us as free lunch jumping boards!
And does anyone has statistics on how many foreigners skip bond and not get penalised/charged? That will tell us how much taxpayer money we lose every year on these obnoxious disgraceful people.
I understand the issue raised in this post, as well as the sentiments of those who have commented. But as a foreign student in Singapore, I think the label "obnoxious disgraceful people" is rather uncalled for.
I acknowledge that S'pore's universities are good, and compared to other places around the world, it is relatively cheaper because of the MOE Tuition Grant. The TG is also a lot easier to get, in contrast to financial aid from US colleges.
However, I would not be so bold as to claim that many foreign students would purposely "cheat" (am using the term loosely here) their way out of the 3-year bond. Most of my peers, both scholars and non-scholars, are keen on working in S'pore to fulfill the bond.
(If there are students who fox their way out of the bond, then by all means, make the terms and conditions of the TG stricter.)
Is the 3-month-no-job-you-can-leave a fair clause in the TG agreement? Given good economic conditions, I doubt many will be jobless. In light of the current economic state, though, whether or not I get a job in S'pore, I will still be the Accused. I will either be accused of stealing jobs, or of stealing taxpayers' money. Hmm.
My two cents. :)
"A place where they treat the foreigners better than the locals. "
Personally, this is something I'd rather disagree with. Whenever I try looking for job, of ANY kind (ranging from IT to shopkeepers), many times when the potential employer hears of me being not even a PR despite being eligible to apply for one, they'll immediately count me out, period, no more chance. That's pretty much my argument against your comment that foreigners are treated better at all.
Btw, as I have implied, I am a foreigner, and I have just graduated from NTU last July. And yes, I have been trying to find work for about 6 months, mostly sending e-mails, and all I have heard is silence, except for three or so whom I promptly thanked for actually saying a word.
"
Personally, this is something I'd rather disagree with. Whenever I try looking for job, of ANY kind (ranging from IT to shopkeepers), many times when the potential employer hears of me being not even a PR despite being eligible to apply for one, they'll immediately count me out, period, no more chance. That's pretty much my argument against your comment that foreigners are treated better at all."
Employers are discriminating against people without PR or citizenship status, not against foreigners per se. By definition, PR's *are* foreigners.
Surely, you must be aware that it is extremely easy for a foreign graduate from our local universities to apply for and obtain PR status after graduation. Your difficulty in seeking a job in Singapore has more to do with the fact that you have not obtained PR status, which is very easy to get and you have unwisely failed to apply for, than with your foreigner status.
If school fees in local university cost $18k, I'm more than willing to pay $36k to get in.
It is pretty sad for a polytechnic graduate to be aimless in life and do a course switch because they were not granted any spot in the 3 local university.
If you are scoring 1-2.3, probably you didn't try, but many of us who scored 2.8 - 3.3 have to end up in SIM or overseas.
What's more funny is UOM accepts overseas students like us w GPA of 3.2 and NUS/NTU/SMU don't even bother looking at us
Hello,
I'm a bangladeshi graduate. I have passed my B.pharm and m.pharm degree. Now i want to take part in pharmacy technician course. But i can't understand who are subsidery and who are not,and what is grant tution.
Post a Comment