Socratic Circle Website

When we talk about bond-breakers, one cannot help but wonder how far our society has progressed in addressing this issue since it was first brought to public attention in February 27 1998, when the names of three bond-breakers were published at the initiative of their government-linked sponsors.

It was even more worrying to know that more than 36% of the scholars recently surveyed by the Straits Times (i.e. 11 out of 30 scholars surveyed) have confessed to their plan of breaking their bonds even before starting work. These scholars were frank and they shared their thoughts aloud. How about those scholars who also harbour such thoughts but dare not confess them to the reporters? While a survey size of 30 may not be representative of the scholars' cohort, many have been awakened to the urgent need to address the bond-breaking issue in this era of war for talent.

While one may argue that our taxpayers do not lose out in monetary terms as bond-breakers are required to make good the scholarship monies and interests, we often fail to take into account other resources committed to the scholarship system. For instance, resources utilised for the scholarship publicity and career-planning for scholars are usually sunk costs that are unlikely to be accounted for in the repayment of scholarship monies. And how about the expensive man-hours incurred by the senior bureaucrats to interview the scholars and the Public Service Commission (PSC) to administer the scholarship system? In addition, there are many opportunity costs, ranging from upsetting manpower planning (with real socio-economic impact) to depriving other candidates of a coveted education that cannot be properly accounted for.

Apart from commercial obligations, serving out a government scholarship entails moral obligations that are beyond commercial contracts. To draw an analogy: when a candidate campaigns to be elected as a Member of Parliament, it is an unspoken understanding that he would serve the nation for the full term of office as stipulated. It would be totally wrong if before he commences his term of office, he harbours any thought that he may quit before completing his term say to focus on building a multi-billion internet start-up. He may argue that his business would be beneficial to our nation. However, his business empire would not justify his breach of promise to the people from his constituency.

Similarly, with government scholarships, there is an added dimension of a very real moral obligation to the people of Singapore, whose money and aspirations fund the scholarships. When a scholar accepts the scholarship, it is an act of pledging a solemn commitment to serve our nation for the stated bond period. He owes a moral obligation to the sponsoring companies and our people who expects him to contribute his best to the nation during the bond period. The argument that the nation would continue to benefit even if he quits halfway to serve in the private sector could cannot hold water. For instance, how could one with national service liability claim that he can fulfil his duties in serving the nation without serving out his national service?

Instead of mourning over the seemingly deteriorating moral standards of some scholars, we propose to address the issue of bond breaking with positive steps. In our discussion, we will need to recognise that there are at least two groups of bond-breakers:

1. Scholars who are contemplating to break their bonds mid-way through the bond period before the commencement of the bond; and

2. Scholars who had planned to complete their bonds but only managed to serve part of their bond.

For the former who plan to break their bonds even before they have experienced working in the civil service, they have little regard for the moral obligation they owe to their sponsors and our society. They are more concerned about their personal aspirations and achievement than the moral duty they owe to the sponsors and community at large.

For the latter that genuinely hope to serve the nation and complete their terms of contract, they are unable to fulfil their contracts due to changing environment and unforeseen circumstances. The break clause provides them with an avenue to resolve matters amicably with their sponsoring companies. In fact, our society is relatively more forgiving towards this group of scholars who are usually perceived as trying their best but cannot fit into the civil service.

Prima facie, these groups of scholars may be distinct. However, the issues affecting them are in fact closely-knit. For instance, 9 out of 11 scholars surveyed (apparently belong to former group of scholars) claimed that their decision to break their bonds were based on the negative feedback from former scholarship students (i.e. latter group of scholars), including complaints about being overworked and underpaid. Other common complaints include job-mismatch, the lack of challenge and the inability to realise one's full potential. In addition, the main reason for all 11 scholars to break their bonds is that the bond is too long which may be a sentiment shared by other scholars.

In view of the above, the following aspects should be examined to address a broader issue of how the civil service (including the government-linked companies) could attract and retain talents to serve the nation:

Civil Service

1. Improve the work culture and environment in the civil service

It is evident that inadequate remuneration is not the only factor that prompts scholars to leave the civil service pre-maturely. Other factors such as personal aspirations, motivation, and recognition play important roles too.

For one, the civil service may work on constantly improving its work culture and environment. While the scholars need to recognise that there is an obligation to serve out their bond, the civil service should also realise that they have to compete with global companies in providing the kind of working conditions appealing to top talents. Many of these scholars are contemplating to break their bonds because they perceive that opportunities outside Singapore are more attractive (i.e. more challenging work and friendlier and more dynamic corporate culture and workforce).

For instance, with the recent calling for more work environment-friendly, family-friendly, and volunteer-friendly policies, the government and the PSC should consider taking the lead in engineering this cultural and environmental overhaul and that would better encourage the private sector to follow suit.

2. Project the correct image of the civil service

The current image of the civil service being perceived by many as stagnant and rigid certainly would not help in attracting and retaining talented people in the service. For one, the 11 surveyed scholars would be commencing work with the biased perception that they would be underpaid and overworked. Thus, the Government should also consider measures to project a correct image of the civil service. These measures may include education, advertising, and regular dialogue sessions.

Scholarship system

1. Review the length of the bond period

For accounting purposes, computer equipment may used to be depreciated over 5-year useful life. However, with the explosion of technology development, it is only meaningful to depreciate computer equipment over a 1 to 3-year useful life. Similarly, notwithstanding that the bond period has been shortened not long ago, the fact that all 11 surveyed scholars made their bond-breaking decision as the bond period is deemed to be too long sends a strong signal that it is time to review the bond period again. For current purposes, a 3 to 4-year bond may be deemed more acceptable to most people.

To be equitable to the sponsoring company while reducing the bond period, co-sharing of the scholarship (e.g. the scholar pays the living allowances and any other expenses while the sponsoring company pays the tuition fees) may be explored.

Alternatively, a "variable" component may be incorporated into a scholarship bond. For example, in a 6-year bond, a scholar may be required to complete at least 3 years of service without being penalised for breaking his bond. By completing the full 6-year bond, he may be given extra incentives such as a gratuity equivalent to 6 to 12 months' of his last drawn salary. Such incentives are akin to what the military already does with its officers.

2. Improve the selection process

The selection process should be utilised effectively to filter out scholars who have no intention to complete their bond. Interview criteria and questions, including aptitude test, should be properly set and determined, and the interviewers should be adequately trained, to assess the scholar's integrity and understanding of his moral obligation to the society. In addition, the moral obligation linked to taking up a bond scholarship should be communicated in detail, both verbally and in writing, before the scholars pen their signature above the dotted line on the contract.

3. Monitor the progress of the scholars

In many big corporations, key appointment holders are often closely monitored to ensure that their needs are well taken care of. Similarly, the progress of the scholars should be closely monitored even after they commence working in their respective fields of civil service. Proper systems should be instituted to identify the highly marketable scholars who are susceptible to job offers outside civil service so that their career needs can be better catered to.

4. Rethinking bond-free scholarships / loans

Scholarships remain an effective, even necessary, tool to reserve talent for any corporation, public or private. However, the nature of scholarships can definitely be more flexible to accommodate the vagaries of real life. Bond-free scholarships cannot be ruled out, and should instead be encouraged and promoted. In fact, it may be wiser to issue more scholarship loans than bonded scholarships. The fact that the Development Bank of Singapore has moved towards allowing bonds to be converted into loans supports the need for flexibility, and such arrangement may work better for both employer and employee as there is more room for negotiation and manoeuvre.

On a realistic note, one must understand the harsh truth that Singapore's talent is global in nature. At present and in the projected future, talent of various disciplines will be in dire short supply. Legislation, "stick"-based solutions, or even public condemnation would only force the affected scholars to stay put in their host countries and companies.

Even the Government, when its sees a good reason, may have to alter the terms of a contract to exploit windows of opportunities or to minimise potential damage. The surprise moving-forward of telecommunication liberalisation (with very real consequences for some companies) comes to mind.

So, is it realistic and reasonable to expect individuals not to respond to better opportunities? If Singaporeans are expected to be more entrepreneurial and constantly identifying and exploiting opportunities, we may have to accept scholars exploiting other opportunities as a fact of life. The recent proposed hike in the ministerial pay sends a strong signal that the cause of a moral high ground alone may be inadequate to sustain one's passion to serve the nation.

If our civil service desires to benefit from a diverse pool of talented scholars, then a rigid return on investment model cannot be applied to scholarships. Some imagination, flexibility and more holistic human resource management are definitely required. With the hope of attracting and retaining talents for the civil service, let us continuously strive to improve the civil service and the scholarship system.

THE SOCRATIC CIRCLE

	P21