Scattered Comments on PY, A*Star and Singapore
- Apparently, lying or shooting your mouth off without prior fact-finding makes you a maverick. ‘More than half’ and ‘70 per cent’ turn out to be 26% and 57% respectively. Well, of course CNA is not going to state outright that Philip Yeo told an untruth. In fact, the original figures spouted out by PY were not at all mentioned in the CNA article, so that they could paint PSC’s release as a ‘clarification’ rather than an outright contradiction of what PY said.
- A somewhat disturbing quote from PY in the ST article. Carrying on in the vein of how great it is to have scholars from poorer backgrounds:
Getting a PhD can be difficult because of the uncertainty of research results. Those from less comfortable homes were more likely to stay the course, he said.
‘Being smart is not enough. You need the perseverance, the tenacity in life. I know of people who start on the PhD, but end up saying, ‘I don’t want to do the research, I want to go back to work in the bank.'’
For those from poor families, it is different.
‘You can’t quit. If you quit, you have to worry about your family. So these kids will survive,’ he said.
So we can gather that PY thinks it’s fine to have scientists who would much rather be in another industry but are staying on because of sheer financial inability to pay off the bond. Great. We’re paying for people who have little passion for science and go through their daily work gritting their teeth, wondering when they can escape to the financial sector. A great recipe for creativity, no? Yes, these ‘kids’ will ’survive’. But we don’t need or want people who just ’survive’. We want people who are good at what they do, enjoy what they do, and will go the extra length, beyond the official job requirements. Do these ‘kids’ who are in it only because they would have to worry about their families otherwise sound like the right type of people?
- Read Fox and Elia Diodati for arguments on why we should stop and examine ourselves rather than launch ad hominem attacks on all criticism. That’s the pattern, isn’t it? If you’re unhappy about your scholarship, you’re a spoilt ungrateful brat. If you criticize Singapore on human rights, you have a ‘hidden agenda’ or are jealous of Singapore’s success. Loyalty is all well and good, but if you listen only to those who already agree with you, you will never change. You may never deteriorate into something worse, but you also will not change for the better.
PY is not known for being consistent or a stickler for the facts. For example, he threatened in 2005 to award scholarships to only female and foreign applicants because he believed that male Singaporean scholarship holders were more likely to break their bonds. However, only 6 years earlier in 1999, when 3 of the bondbreakers were named publicly, 2 of them, the EDB scholars, were Malaysians.
Comment by Fox — July 28, 2008 @ 6:08 am
“Great. We’re paying for people who have little passion for science and go through their daily work gritting their teeth, wondering when they can escape to the financial sector. A great recipe for creativity, no? Yes, these ‘kids’ will ’survive’. But we don’t need or want people who just ’survive’.”
This sounds strange. Maybe you’re not really a “test-tube washer”, real test-tube washers have a different view of the allure of the bench and space for creativity in science.
“That’s the pattern, isn’t it? If you’re unhappy about your scholarship, you’re a spoilt ungrateful brat. If you criticize Singapore on human rights, you have a ‘hidden agenda’ or are jealous of Singapore’s success.”
Personally I am not as bothered by bond-breakers as I am of individuals who hurl unsubstantiated accusations at others and gang up with foreigners at any opportunity to attack all Singaporeans.
“Loyalty is all well and good, but if you listen only to those who already agree with you, you will never change. You may never deteriorate into something worse, but you also will not change for the better.”
I definitely agree.
Comment by LH — August 1, 2008 @ 7:33 am