I have been following the news on tertiary education for a while now as it is currently peak-period for application to universities in Singapore. What caught my attention though was the media coverage on scholarship bond-breaking issues, which discuss the moral implications on the individuals and impact to the sponsors and society. Most scholarships today are offered by organisations to finance applicants' studies and in return, expect a service bond of up to 6 years. Many are taking up the scholarships available but others are exiting their scholarship schemes prematurely, paying the liquidated damage and calling it a day… Some felt that these scholars have a moral obligation to serve out the full period of their bonds, which goes way beyond the legal obligation of paying up. Others that are sympathetic, believing that bond-breakage can be regarded as an option when job satisfaction is just not there.

My take: Singaporeans are becoming increasingly calculative in terms of benefits received. Some choose to take up scholarships despite being able to pay for their university education (and of course they must meet the required grades first) just for the prestige and recognition. This, I despise. We must learn to give and gain mutually such that both the sponsor and scholar benefit.

However, we cannot exclude possibility of employers exploiting the service bond period of scholars, laying down unreasonable demands and restrictions, resulting in job dissatisfaction and eventually bond breakage. Singapore is already facing a shortage of resources and human resource is the main driving force of our economy, it is a major responsibility for Singapore to retain its talents through provision of scholarships and a follow-up of a conducive working environment.

An article on why a PSC scholar break his bond
http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,86038,00.html

Straits Times Discussion page [search: scholarship bonds]
http://www.straitstimes.com/vgn-ext-templating/sti/SearchPage.jsp?fromBN=true