EDB & NCB name scholars who break bonds
Open Market
My first reaction is, what kind of mentality is it?
Just on the surface, these people pay back the money plus interest to
the government. They do not just run away!
As far as morality is concerned, it might be immoral not to work for
the sponsors, but it might be even more immoral to bind these young
people into a deal when they were innocent about the kind of
opportunities that are available for their talents.
Do they deprive others? Bear in mind that these people are so called
the best of the best. The next in line is not preferred. Maybe the
next in line is more loyal, but you would still bet on the first one,
hoping that he/she is loyal too, wouldn't you?
>From a ojbective stand point, a scholarships system is a cost
effective way of retaining bright people in the government. It should
be a professionally run system, rather than emotionally driven. It is
naive to think of 100% return. A proper benefit/penalty scheme should
be set out for every participant to evaluate cost/benefit. The
government should calculate the loss associated with a withdrawal
carefully at the beginning. When a bond does not work out, one just
has to compensate the government for that loss and that is. The
situation now is like "hey boy, you want to jump boat. But I am not
going to let you benefit from this. Let go down together first".
Isn't this act a lack of prudence on the government side, and also a
breach of gentleman agreement (strictly speaking, the government
reserve the right to do anything, but gentleman should be civilized
enough not to cause suffering)?
Also, these fine young people are only in their 20s. Given the good
reputation of the government, should the tolerant capacity of the
government be so small that they have to destroy the futures of these
kids? This is not a child play. Is the government trying to
cultivate a kind of vengeance culture in its citizens? All these acts
just give rise to more handles for the western media to ridicule the
government.
The government should treasure this group of people, instead. They
are the ones who dare make important decisions and changes in their
lives. They are relatively better risk takers than those who stay on
just for the comfort of the scholarships. The government should try
to attract them in the future, rather than trample them now.
Everything has a price to pay. In the long run, do you think the
government has a upper hand?
cmukid
Open Market <fed...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<MOD$980228...@sintercom.org>...
> As far as morality is concerned, it might be immoral not to work for
> the sponsors, but it might be even more immoral to bind these young
> people into a deal when they were innocent about the kind of
> opportunities that are available for their talents.
>
Certainly, it would be legally wrong to adopt such measures of public
shaming if these were not prescribed for in the original contracts the
scholars signed. I expect to see lawsuits over this, and it would be
interesting to see how the courts handle them. Any lawyers care to
comment?
In any case, the precedent has been started, and there could very well be a
backlash: many people will stop applying for govt scholarships. Not just
those who are "in for the ride" and don't really need the scholarship, but
bona fide cases as well. At 18 years of age, and having solid academic
credentials, one never knows what opportunities abound, except that they do
abound. So why limit one's mobility to take on these opportunities by
being tied down to a bond, and especially since the consequences of
breaking the bond are now significantly higher?
When this happens, the original intention of using scholarships to attract
and retain the best minds to serve the govt (a Confucian view, I might add,
and a good one too) will be defeated. Already I know of people not on
scholarship who have changed their noble views of NCB and EDB because of
this incident. It will be amusing when EDB sees that the recruitment talks
it frequently conducts at prestigious foreign universities draw an empty
crowd.
Edmund Chia
On 1 Mar 1998 01:20:24 +0800, "cmukid" <cmu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In any case, the precedent has been started, and there could very well be a
>backlash: many people will stop applying for govt scholarships. Not just
>those who are "in for the ride" and don't really need the scholarship, but
>bona fide cases as well.
I very much doubt if this would happen. Out of the 1000 people who
applied for the 74 EDB scholarships, and the 150 who applied for the 4
NCB scholarships, there are probably enough 'bone fide' applicants to
take up all the scholarships on offer with the genuine desire to serve
out their bond. I happen to BELIEVE in Singaporeans.
Edmund
Yong-Wah Goh
The previous two comments are rather interesting, both writer seems
to forgot the underlying idea of a govt. scholarship.
1) the scholarship is meant for those bright people who will become
top level civil servants.
2) Civil servant.....why is it called Civil and Servant???
The is an underlying ideal of someone serving the society
and I would like to believe out of loyalty or civic mindedness
rather than material wealth or selfish personal needs.
Now.....we have a situation where the scholars have broken their
bond. They are bright kids with great future and wonderful grades....
we are therefore safe to assume that they are above intelligent kids
who knows better. If so, they would and should have a good idea of where
they want to go. If not why take up the scholarship.
Now some would reply by saying, hey they were young, Fine then, we will then
assume that even with their wonderful cvs and grades, they have no or very
unstable idea of what they want.
So they took up the scholarship, bonded and committed to serve the years put on them after they graduated. Now they wanted to break the bond.....
that is a breach of trust and committment. They have to pay the penalties.....
What do we see here......someone who because of whatever reasons are willing
to break the agreement an agreement that is not simple.....
an agreement that he/she will serve the country as a civil servant.
An agreement to do something that is important ( to serve the country)
if one sees the job of a civil servant as one. Now obviously the idea of a civil servant does not appeal to these
scholars in comparison to other path such as research. One of them perhaps
is willing to forgo the promise to be a civil servant to serve the country
in return for a job in research. The question are these.....
1) Is this person unaware of the seriousness of breaking the bond?
2) Is this person unappreciative or do not think much about the
meaning or importance of being a civil servant?
3) Is this person not afraid of paying back the amount spent on him/her?
The bottom line is this, the scholarship is hard to apply for, anyone who
wants to apply should at the very least have the decency to realised that
this is for real. If you get it you honour its terms and conditions.
If you break it, it is your fault and you should bear the consequences......
with a high IQ as reflected by these scholar's grades, they should at leats have enough
brain cells to know that things won't be easy for one self if one breaks
the govt. bond. If one can break a bond of this catagories, I wouldn't be
surprised one can even breach other more if not equally important trusts established between them and other institutions or people. I for one would think
twice about hiring them. The reasons I have heard so far for their breaking
of the bond were simply not good enough. The fact that even with the
existing penalties, they still break the bond means that tougher measures
need to be taken to ensure this would not happened again in the future.
The issue is not whether we should treasure these talented people, but whether
we should incalcate in singaporean the very basic human values of trust,
honesty and committment. Obviously these weren't well shown in the scholars
who broke the bond. and I begin to seriously doubt if we really know what it
is.....perhaps what is more important is material wealth and social status.
Hence, they should face the consequence squarely......
or do you mean they lack even the basic courage and dignity in everyone?
yong wah
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
On 1 Mar 1998 01:20:24 +0800, "cmukid" <cmu...@earthlink.net> wrote and I quote:
>:Certainly, it would be legally wrong to adopt such measures of public
>:shaming if these were not prescribed for in the original contracts the
>:scholars signed. I expect to see lawsuits over this, and it would be
>:interesting to see how the courts handle them. Any lawyers care to
>:comment?
I'm just curious, but why is it *legally* wrong for EDB/NCB to name the
ex-scholars? And what would the ex-scholars be suing EDB/NCB for? I doubt if the
contract had any terms prohibiting EDB/NCB from naming the ex-scholars if they
break their bonds. And the favourite suit in Singapore (no not Valentino but
defamation) doesn't work here, because the fact is that they did break their
bonds.
The NCB chap seems quite pitiful, I must say. However, there's probably more
than meets the eye. The NCB spokesman implied that he was quite determined to
break the bond, even though NCB was willing to negotiate an extension for him.
But then again, who knows what kind of attitude NCB had? It's hard to believe
that they would really be as sensitive to the nuances involved, as they are
posturing to be.
Similarly, EDB seems grimly set on sliming the bond-breakers. I just find it
hard to stomache that these scholarship sponsors are sitting up there on their
moral high horses, without any hint of an iota of understanding for
bond-breakers.
Sure, if a bond-breaker was truly as cynical as to take a scholarship to
increase his "job market value" with an eye to breaking the bond later, then the
vitriol is justified. But how sure are EDB and NCB, that these people were like
that, that that was the motivation to accept the scholarship from the start? If
it's just a suspicion, or worse mere cynicism, then I'd suggest that EDB and NCB
are even less worthy of respect than the bond-breakers.
xjh <lima...@pobox.org.sg> <x...@pinky-and-the-brain.com>
The Singapore Bean Asylum: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/5545
VeryNiceGuy
Edmund Chia wrote:
>
> On 1 Mar 1998 01:20:24 +0800, "cmukid" <cmu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >In any case, the precedent has been started, and there could very well be a
> >backlash: many people will stop applying for govt scholarships. Not just
> >those who are "in for the ride" and don't really need the scholarship, but
> >bona fide cases as well.
>
> I very much doubt if this would happen. Out of the 1000 people who
we;ll see. [but undergrad scholarships with bonds are definitely not
for my children if i will have any.]
> applied for the 74 EDB scholarships, and the 150 who applied for the 4
> NCB scholarships, there are probably enough 'bone fide' applicants to
even bona fide applicants will be scared now.
> take up all the scholarships on offer with the genuine desire to serve
> out their bond. I happen to BELIEVE in Singaporeans.
you are assuming some people to be sinister at the outset. some not.
but life is a lot more complicated than that.
>
> Edmund
Open Market
I am not sure should the underlying ideas of scholarships be defined
so restrictively. Becoming a civil servant is a good intention, but
should this be the exclusive idea of a scholarships?
If this is so, I would argue that the government is trying to lock in
valuable human resource at a low price when the market values of these
people are not fully realized. This is not necessarily a bad policy
by itself as Singapore has to economical in every aspect.
Or should a scholarships be an award to young bright people who
deserve and have to ability to explore the fullest of lives?
Let us try conceive the two different intentions or mentalities of the
scholarships awarding body:
1) In front of me is a fine young human being who is intelligent and
capable. He/She has the ability to make an impact to our country or
even the mankind. Let help him/her out and I wish him/her all the
best in his/her life.
2) In front of me is a capable man/woman who is able to help me in the
future. Let recruit him/her and make sure he/she is our possession.
If the government do not acknowledge point 1, I will wonder how
generous the government is to its citizens. The authoritarian
government do not allow personal aspirations to be pursued.
The other point is should we force the kids to make decisions about
their lives at the age of 20. The fact is one's interest and value
will change over time as experience is accumulated. There is nothing
fundamentally wrong with not having an idea about what to do in the
future.
The most important point here is that do the government recruit people
who are enthusiastic to be civil servant? With this naming, a lot of
"marginal" scholars will decide to remain on board. They might not
have the enthusiasm of civil serving anymore. So, what are you going
to do with them?
The bottom line is if one has no interest in doing something, it is
futile to force him/her to stay on. Whether EDB or NCB name those
people or not does not change the fading enthusiasm of public serving
in these scholars' hearts.
cmukid
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong <lima...@pobox.org.sg> wrote in article
<MOD$98030...@sintercom.org>...
> On 1 Mar 1998 01:20:24 +0800, "cmukid" <cmu...@earthlink.net> wrote and I
quote:
>
> I'm just curious, but why is it *legally* wrong for EDB/NCB to name the
> ex-scholars? And what would the ex-scholars be suing EDB/NCB for? I doubt
if the
> contract had any terms prohibiting EDB/NCB from naming the ex-scholars if
they
> break their bonds. And the favourite suit in Singapore (no not Valentino
but
> defamation) doesn't work here, because the fact is that they did break
their
> bonds.
>
For defamation of reputation, something our dear govt has exemplified in
recent years. Surely one must protect one's reputation against
opportunistic opponents.
It is precisely because such a penalty was NOT included in the original
contract that this case can be challenged in court. Otherwise, sponsors
will get the idea they have carte blanche, that any and every penalty is
possible. What if sponsors decide that, in addition to monetary
compensation, the bond-breakers should pay the proverbial "pound of flesh"?
Would you consider this equitable?
Much as the sponsor's interests need to be protected, the law has to
protect the bond-breaker too. Penalties should only be meted out according
to what was agreed upon initially. If no provision is made for such a
penalty, then I must insist that there is ground for challenge.
If NCB/EDB decides to penalize in this fashion, then first incorporate this
into new contracts, so that all who sign do so with their eyes open.
Punishing in a way that is not provided for is considered high-handed by
many people, and that doesn't augur well for the reputation of NCB/EDB.
And this is my point to Yong Wah too: I am not saying that the scholars
are right or wrong to break their bonds. I withhold judgement on that.
I'm saying that this does not give the sponsors the right to exact any
penalty they like, but only what has been set forth in the contracts.
Edmund Chia
On 1 Mar 1998 22:03:22 +0800, lima...@pobox.org.sg (Siew Kum
Hong/Xiao Jinhong) wrote:
>I'm just curious, but why is it *legally* wrong for EDB/NCB to name the
>ex-scholars?
Yup, if you have no qualms about being named when you win a
scholarship, so that you can tell everyone how clever you are. You
should have no qualms beign named when you break a bond.
>The NCB chap seems quite pitiful, I must say. However, there's probably more
>than meets the eye. The NCB spokesman implied that he was quite determined to
>break the bond, even though NCB was willing to negotiate an extension for him.
>But then again, who knows what kind of attitude NCB had? It's hard to believe
>that they would really be as sensitive to the nuances involved, as they are
>posturing to be.
Actually, I do not find it hard to believe. It is common knowledge
that many organizations pander to the many whims of their scholars.
After all, these are the bright-eyed fast-tracked glory boys (and
girls) of the organization, and would you want to piss off someone who
might shot past you on the fast track a few years after he/she
graduates? Moreover, the fact that many scholars DO resume studies, or
go off on funded sabbaticals for a higher degree suggests that there
is considerable flexibility involved.
Edmund
For some, the value of a promise lies not in the giving,
but in the keeping.
Edmund Chia
On 2 Mar 1998 09:46:55 +0800, VeryNiceGuy <ngso...@pacific.net.sg>
wrote:
>we;ll see. [but undergrad scholarships with bonds are definitely not
>for my children if i will have any.]
Great - that would mean more opportunities for my children (if I have
any) who will NOT break their word lightly - not if I have anything to
say about it. Certainly, I shall not be making it easy for them to
break their word by paying off an obligation that they should have
honored.
>> out their bond. I happen to BELIEVE in Singaporeans.
>you are assuming some people to be sinister at the outset. some not.
>but life is a lot more complicated than that.
You seem to have no problem believing that everyone who signed up for
the scholarship did from the purest of motives, and broke their bonds
only because of that nasty and evil EDB/NCB (who gave them that
opportunity in the first place) or because of some heartbreakingly
noble reason. Life is a lot more complicated than that.
Yong-Wah Goh
Hi here's something I would like people to ponder on.
Lets look at the history of these scholars......
for them to get a pretigious scholarship like that, these people
would have been high flyers in most of their school days!
They would have been from one of those 'super' schools and colleges.
Imagine someone from Raffles RI and RJC. He/she would probably be one
of the top students of the class if not the school. Being a student of these
prestige schools, he would have been given the best and be indoctrinated with
a sense of superiority in himself perhaps. Life is good for them I would presume
as far as academic life and future aspiration are concerned.
Now they are later being offered these EDB and the other insitution's
scholarship. I assumed that they would have a good idea of what they will
be heading for......an overseas pretigious uni. then after graduation a
well paid job with GREAT future, possibly even reaching the level of
ministership. Now under this kind of promising future......
what kind of people would go for it???
I have three in mind.
1) Those who seriously are sincere in serving the country as a civil servant.
or
2) Those who are ambitious, wants the best and see this as a golden
opportunity to make it
big in life in Singapore. i.e. drawn by material wealth and high social
status and what not.
or
3) Those who comes from a poor family and would very much like to take this
opportunity to get a good degree all expenses paid by the govt and make it
big in life.
Lets assume that these are the only three types of people who would go for the
scholarship......for someone to break it. would the reasons be something like:
for 1) disillusioned with the govt.
for 2) found better opportunity to gain material wealth and other
satisfaction from
some where else
for 3) reasons above either one or both of them.
Now i am sure there are possibly other reasons......
but lets restrict to the three above and we will still be puzzled by the fact
that one has decided to break one's promise and destroy one's integrity over
reasons that frankly are just not good enough. What is more important than
your very own sense of integrity, hornouring your promises, hornoring other's
trust on you, the very simple value of being truthful and committed to what
you have agreed to honour?
Yes it is not good enough even for reason (1).....disillusioned with the govt.
'cos if you really are that disillusioned with the govt. why just break the
bond??? must as well give up your citizenship!!!
And even if you have found out that your interest is infact in research or
teaching and do not want to be a pen pusher in the govt.....your breaking of the bond
tells me either:
1) you are/were someone who is fickle minded and cannot decide.....or
2) your self interest is more important than your promises and the trust
people have in you.
3) you are an opportunist and a liar.
Either one of them does not give me much confident in hiring you.
You break the bond, therefore you have to bear the responsibility of being
treated and called a lier or someone who cannot be trusted.
Trust can be made easily but once broken it is very difficult to earned back...
these scholars should have the brain cell mass to know that. This is not
a simple promise of me going to get your a packet of chicken rice when
I go downstairs to the coffee shop. This is an important promise to the
govt. over an important matter involving large amount of money and time and
efforts that are not easy to come by which has to be competed among so
many other students who possbile need it more than this person.
yong wah
Yong-Wah Goh
A fair comment from samnuel,
The bond breakers have paid their penalty.
The institutions take further actions.
The point of debate: Should the Bond breaker bear that too?
I reckon at this point in time, yes......
What the institutions did was to bring their name out in the public.
I think the bond breaker should bear it, after all they did wrong first.
.........they were the only who break the trust and agreement made between
them and the insitutions. What the insitutions have done at this point is
merely bring their name out. Yes Lost of face, but wouldn't the very act of
dishonouring your committment and promise be already face loosing act?
yong wah
Yong-Wah Goh
A sport on comment from open market.....
you have brought out the fundemantal issues of govt. scholarship.
Is the govt. scholarship aimed at keeping this young bright people
or helping them achieved their fullest potential no matter where or what
that opportunity is???
I think the answer is quite obvious to many Singaporean.
As for the issue of being young, like what I have mentioned earlier......
the point of debate is not whether they are young or not
but the basic value of trusts and committment.
It doesn't mean that if you are young and that you cannot decide
what you want in life, you can also forget about honouring the
term and conditions of the agreement you made. Lack of maturity and
experience do not equate to trust, committment and responsibility.
You made a mistake you bear the responsibility disregards whether you
are talented or not.
yong wah
cmukid
Edmund Chia <Edmun...@iasos.utas.edu.au> wrote in article
<MOD$980301...@sintercom.org>...
> On 1 Mar 1998 01:20:24 +0800, "cmukid" <cmu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> I very much doubt if this would happen. Out of the 1000 people who
> NCB scholarships, there are probably enough 'bone fide' applicants to
>
>
>
You have a point there Edmund, but the 150 who applied to NCB probably also
applied to EDB, so there is a lot of overlap. Just goes to show that when
an 18-year-old applies for a scholarship, it is ONLY the scholarship that
attracts, not the job thereafter.
On second thought, I think this public naming/shaming idea will fall flat
on its face, leaving only EDB/NCB the worse for the negative reputation it
has generated for itself.
You see, the idea of shaming the bond-breakers is only effective if the
shame actually works, ie. if it affects the employment opportunities of the
scholars. Now, if the scholars decide to seek employment elsewhere in the
world, they will not give a hoot about job prospects back home.
Even if they are to come back to Singapore, will they really be denied good
jobs? Hardly. The corporate world is known for capable people being
poached and seconded and transfered, etc. Headhunters exist to help
companies get good talent. And companies know that they can retain good
staff only as long as their remuneration packages are more attractive then
their rivals'. I seriously doubt a company would say, "ah.. here is a
bond-breaker applying for a job at my company, and because he/she was not
loyal to the original sponsor, he/she will not be loyal to me, and
therefore I should not employ this person."
If anything, such publicity will tell companies who the bond-breakers are
and how to locate them to offer them a job!
Therefore, the effectiveness of such public shaming is only a perceived
one, not a real threat. As long as the scholars realize this, then there
is absolutely no fear of a loss of job opportunity, and therefore no fear
of being shamed.
Europa
In a time not yet long forgotten Edmund Chia <Edmun...@iasos.utas.edu.au> sayeth:
> Yup, if you have no qualms about being named when you win a
> scholarship, so that you can tell everyone how clever you are. You
> should have no qualms beign named when you break a bond.
I don't think most of the people want to be named when they win a scholarship,
at least among my friends they don't. They just want a scholarship so they can
get the best education available. You insinuate stuff that you don't know about
and this bitter tone is not appreciated, especially since most of my friends are
scholars who received the more prestigious ones. They have every intention of serving
out their bonds but they are not sure if working for the govt is the best environment
for them. I wonder how you would feel if you were working in an environment you didn't
like. Maybe you won't be so loud with your complaints if you weren't from the outside
looking in.
> Actually, I do not find it hard to believe. It is common knowledge
> that many organizations pander to the many whims of their scholars.
> After all, these are the bright-eyed fast-tracked glory boys (and
> girls) of the organization, and would you want to piss off someone who
> might shot past you on the fast track a few years after he/she
> graduates? Moreover, the fact that many scholars DO resume studies, or
> go off on funded sabbaticals for a higher degree suggests that there
> is considerable flexibility involved.
I don't. As for your common knowledge, I don't know where you get it from.
Every extension comes with another bond, which means working longer in a place
you don't want to be in the first place.
--
Joseph Jeong
Anti-Snail Mail: ronin at mail dot com
"Delight of the cognoscenti" -- Calvin
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
On 2 Mar 1998 13:37:38 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote and I quote:
>:It doesn't mean that if you are young and that you cannot decide
>:what you want in life, you can also forget about honouring the
>:term and conditions of the agreement you made. Lack of maturity and
>:experience do not equate to trust, committment and responsibility.
>:You made a mistake you bear the responsibility disregards whether you
>:are talented or not.
Oh but the bond-breakers did honour the *terms and conditions* of the
scholarship agreement. They paid the liquidated damages demanded by their
ex-sponsors, as stated under the agreement.
Now if the sponsors are going to reduce the scholarship to a commercial
transaction (which the scholarship contract is), then they should not be
attaching all these moral terms to it. I know I have argued elsewhere that the
naming of the bond-breakers is legal, and I don't see any contradiction in my
position. It's certainly legal and within the sponsors' right to do so, but it
irks me to see people leaping at the opportunity to mount moral high-horses and
attack bond-breakers as being irresponsible, untrustworthy, manipulative,
immoral cynics.
I think the sponsors chose to take moral obligations out of the scholarship
agreement when they put in the bond and liquidated penalty clauses, and that
makes the scholarship an amoral transaction. Any moral implications are strictly
held by the sponsors and the sponsors alone, and objectively I cannot see any
basis for it. They chose the rules of the game, now they should play by it. By
phrasing their grouses against the bond-breakers in such moral terms, the
sponsors aren't really playing fair with them. Legal, yes. Right? I really don't
think so.
As for the "depriving others of a scholarship" argument, I think it's totally
disingenuous. The bond-breakers have paid the penalties under the scholarship
contract. Take that money, and put it right back into the 1998 scholarship
programme. Take in one more scholar than you otherwise would (if you have a
quota).
If the scholarships had been awarded purely on merit (which pre-supposes an
unlimited budget), then it shouldn't really make that much of a difference
anyway, does it? Because all worthy candidates would have received a
scholarship, and nobody would have been deprived of anything.
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
On 2 Mar 1998 13:36:45 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote and I quote:
<snip>
I find your readiness to stereotype would-be scholars somewhat offensive, having
been an aspiring scholar not so long ago (well actually it's been 3-4 years),
and knowing many scholars myself. It pins all these pre-conceptions and
stereotypes onto them.
Firstly, I think most scholars just want to go overseas for a good education
without burdening their parents. That's not to say NUS/NTU is bad, just that if
you can get a good education, get to stay in a foreign country for 3-4 years,
and all at somebody else's expense, then why, it sounds like a mighty good
proposition (or it should).
I think it's too presumptuous to attach all these motives to would-be scholars.
I daresay at 19-20, most people tend not to have such lofty aspirations as
serving the country, and anyone talking that way is just doing it for PR.
Further, what is so wrong with seeing scholarships as a path to material
success? I think that's a bit of win-win thinking; I can get to be well-off
working for my sponsor, and my sponsor benefits from my working there. To
require scholars to have such a wide-streak of altruism in there is being naive.
Similarly, how many 19/20-year-olds actually think along the lines of taking a
scholarship to "increase market value", with an eye to quit without serving the
bond? If that is true, then it is a truly damning indictment of the kind of
people our society is producing. And as a hard-boiled cynic of many years, I am
pleasantly surprised to realise that I don't think that's the way it really is.
Further, let's not forget that the damages bond-breakers pay are punitive in
nature. Not only do they compensate the sponsor for expenditure incurred, they
also aim to deter. In that sense, the bond-breakers are in fact paying for that
increased "market value".
For the first time in a really long time ie. as far back as I can remember, I
find myself agreeing with Tan Sai Siong in today's ST Perspective. She makes a
cogent argument for sponsors to get off their moral high-horses, simply because
they do require liquidated damages from bond-breakers.
Trust me, it hurts me a hell of a lot to say that :).
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
On 2 Mar 1998 10:09:32 +0800, Edmun...@iasos.utas.edu.au (Edmund Chia) wrote
and I quote:
>:Actually, I do not find it hard to believe. It is common knowledge
>:that many organizations pander to the many whims of their scholars.
I have my doubts about the veracity of that. These sponsors seem to be rather
inflexible when it comes to the extensions of study durations. They seem to want
a return on their investment ASAP.
>:After all, these are the bright-eyed fast-tracked glory boys (and
>:girls) of the organization, and would you want to piss off someone who
>:might shot past you on the fast track a few years after he/she
>:graduates?
That's pre-supposing that the person making the decision is in a relatively
junior position, and/or he/she isn't on the fast-track himself/herself. In any
case, it's always easy to cite corporate policy (which should be the proper way
to handle it anyway, personal whims and desires shouldn't come into the
picture).
>:Moreover, the fact that many scholars DO resume studies, or
>:go off on funded sabbaticals for a higher degree suggests that there
>:is considerable flexibility involved.
As pointed out by another scholar, higher degrees come with extended or fresh
bonds.
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
On 2 Mar 1998 09:49:38 +0800, "cmukid" <cmu...@earthlink.net> wrote and I quote:
<snip>
>:What if sponsors decide that, in addition to monetary
>:compensation, the bond-breakers should pay the proverbial "pound of flesh"?
>: Would you consider this equitable?
No, but neither do I consider it even marginally realistic.
>:Much as the sponsor's interests need to be protected, the law has to
>:protect the bond-breaker too. Penalties should only be meted out according
>:to what was agreed upon initially. If no provision is made for such a
>:penalty, then I must insist that there is ground for challenge.
Then I'm afraid you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the law operates,
sat least with respect to contracts. Just as there was no provision for naming
of bond-breakers, there was also no provision for the anonymity of
bond-breakers. So when faced with these conflicting policies, just which should
the courts uphold?
I think it's going a bit too far, to expect the judicial system to operate to
protect the anonymity of bond-breakers. Why should it? It's imposing an onerous
burden on the law, and one which is exceedingly difficult to quantify.
In the first place, there is no breach of any term. Even if you can imply that
there is a contractual term preventing the sponsors from naming bond-breakers
(which I would suggest is a highly improbable result), how are the bond-breakers
going to establish damage and loss (and they will only get compensation for
those damage and loss)?
Further, while there is no Constitutional guarantee of privacy (and hence
anonymity of bond-breakers), there *is* a Constitutional right to freedom of
speech (subject to certain restrictions which aren't quite relevant here). The
EDB/NCB statement contained no falsehoods. It's hard to see why they should be
deprived of this right.
Objectively, your position is simply untenable, whatever your personal opinions
of the rights of the bond-breakers are.
>:If NCB/EDB decides to penalize in this fashion, then first incorporate this
>:into new contracts, so that all who sign do so with their eyes open.
>:Punishing in a way that is not provided for is considered high-handed by
>:many people, and that doesn't augur well for the reputation of NCB/EDB.
Granted that it does not augur well for the reputation of NCB/EDB. But that is
obviously a risk they are happy to live with, for the dubious pleasures or
benefits of naming the bond-breakers.
I'd venture to suggest that EDB may have a hidden agenda for naming
bond-breakers. Some/many(?) EDB scholarships come under a relatively new scheme
where the scholars are placed with a local SME after graduation. Perhaps it is
to pre-empt these scholars from breaking their bonds, that EDB is embarking on
such an initiative. After all, it hardly makes EDB look good in the eyes of the
Singapore business community, for their scholars to break the bonds just like
that.
Autolycus
BEGINQUOTE
* In article <MOD$980302...@sintercom.org>, lima...@pobox.org.sg wrote:
>For the first time in a really long time ie. as far back as I can remember, I
>find myself agreeing with Tan Sai Siong in today's ST Perspective. She makes a
>cogent argument for sponsors to get off their moral high-horses, simply because
>they do require liquidated damages from bond-breakers.
I agree with everything this human bean is saying. Why do we even call it
'bond-breaking'? It is merely bond repayment, a wise business transaction
when you see a better opportunity and need to get rid of an encumberment.
It's not a matter of honour. The government proves this by allowing what
it considers undesirable deeds as long as the perpetrator pays for it.
for example, you can buy and sell cigarettes even though the government
states it is a health risk. You can buy and sell cars even though the
government explicitly says it does not want more cars on the roads. And
you can accept a bond and then pay it off because the agreement is that
if you pay it off you are free.
I mean, if Goh Chok Tong's son can pay off the balance of his bond, does
it mean that he was dishonourable? And if so, what of the parents who
concurred with his decision? Are they dishonourable too? I don't think so.
And what of the society which drove this young man to do such a 'heinous'
deed?
If you consider the government a benefactor, then by all creeds, it should
make its employees happy enough to continue working for it. Not
deliriously happy, mind you, or suicidally happy, or wastefully happy...
just glad to be working.
I work for an independent school. The government hands out $2b for IT
expenditure. Then it calls for a tender which takes six months, during
which the value of the dollar drops drastically and all our budgets go out
of the window. Only small fast companies can react so as to take advantage
of economic opportunity. With every piece of mindless control the
government tries to exert, we see the opportunities shrivel on the vine.
Just like the students under my care... some of who will become scholars
someday. Maybe they too will face the choice of courageous Hector Yee, of
whether to remain bound or to pay off an encumbrance. It is not that
Hector was a rebellious Satan of the Miltonian type; he was more a
Prometheus as in Shelley's depiction.
"To suffer Woe which Hope thinks infinite,
To forgive wrongs darker than Death or Night,
To defy Power which seems omnipotent,
Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent;
This is to be...
Good, great and joyous, beautiful and free.
This is alone Life, Joy, Empire and Victory."
Autolycus
--
. . **********************************************************
/b /| * Autolycus: Lone Wolf * email auto...@pacific.net.sg *
/ 3b-'-':| ==========================================================
.d~ .:::; * *
C "騖,::@::: * MUNDUS VULT DECIPI: The world wishes to be deceived. *
C |:::::; * *
`( \ _`::; * It is up to you to decide whether to oblige or not. *
~`\`\::; * *
`~~' **********************************************************
cmukid
>
> In the first place, there is no breach of any term. Even if you can imply
that
> there is a contractual term preventing the sponsors from naming
bond-breakers
> (which I would suggest is a highly improbable result), how are the
bond-breakers
> going to establish damage and loss (and they will only get compensation
for
> those damage and loss)?
>
So, are you saying that:
1. Suppose you and I had a contract for some transaction,
2. And that for whatever reasons you reneged your part of the deal,
3. But paid in full all compensations due to me which were stated in the
contract (but which did not allow nor prohibit public naming),
4. And that, after receiving such compensations from you in full, I still
publicized your name and your actions to shame you
that you have no legal grounds to sue me for defaming your reputation?
If so, then I must say that this creates a frightening climate in which to
do business, since the wronged party in a contract has powers beyond what
was agreed upon, and can exercise these powers with impunity.
Bear in mind that establishing actual damage/loss is a different matter,
and does not prevent a lawsuit from actually being filed. If you recall
the GCT vs JBJ case: GCT conceded there was no loss to his reputation
caused by JBJ, but that did not prevent him from suing his opponent, and
even getting some compensation in the end.
Yong-Wah Goh
A very interesting point there from Jin Hong, especially the part
about one shouldn't be jumping into the issue of morality.
Let me get it straight.....
are you saying that because they pay for the penalties as
stated by the contract.....it is okay?
Sounds good to me......
now let say I got a EDB scholarship too and
I went overseas and then I realised I can do better
in some other areas and by luck I have the money to break the bond
too, so hey heck the terms and conditions of the bond.
I'll break it, and heck my promised and committment to the
EDB. Simple as that???......no implications on my act of breaking the bond
what so ever?
I hope you are not saying that in cases like this there is no
ground for discussing moral issues.
yong wah
Europa
In a time not yet long forgotten Yong-Wah Goh <g...@psy.uq.oz.au> sayeth:
<a whole lot of flawed analysis>
I don't even know where to start because your analysis is so full of flaws.
the most glaring one being that you restrict the analysis to only three
categories. surely we are not that naive. secondly, at the age of 18 or 19
how many people really know what they want to do? to call them fickle just
because they find out working for the govt is not their cup of tea is absurd.
there's more but i hope this has pointed out at least some flaws with your
analysis and hopefully this kind of stereotype will no longer exist.
Yong-Wah Goh
Erm....there is something I do not understand about Joseph's
comment.....which says:
"Every extension comes with another bond, which means working longer in a place
you don't want to be in the first place."
before that he also noted that some scholars would not want to work in
an "Environment" which they do not like? Sorry but I feel that that is
very similar to the coplaints of a spoiled little brat!
You mean when you sign the bond, you assume that apart from supporting your
studies overseas and giving you a good career prospect, they must also
give you a work environment that is to your satisfaction? That that is part\
of the bond's deal as well???
I never heard of that in any bond's contract for that matter!!!
And if now you somehow realised that "working in a satisfactory environment"
is not part of the deal.....I think it is better that you do not sign
the contract then!
Every extension comes with a bond, that is a deal......if you do not want it
simply DO NOT SIGN IT!!!
yong wah
ARCHer with a Broken Arrow
On 2 Mar 1998 10:49:35 +0800, Edmun...@iasos.utas.edu.au (Edmund
Chia) wrote:
>On 2 Mar 1998 09:46:55 +0800, VeryNiceGuy <ngso...@pacific.net.sg>
>wrote:
>
>>we;ll see. [but undergrad scholarships with bonds are definitely not
>>for my children if i will have any.]
>
>Great - that would mean more opportunities for my children (if I have
>any) who will NOT break their word lightly - not if I have anything to
>say about it. Certainly, I shall not be making it easy for them to
>break their word by paying off an obligation that they should have
>honored.
Of those scholarship holders breaking their bonds, I wonder who will
ultimately foot the bill. My guess is that it is their parents that
end up buying out the bond for their children. If parents do not
support their child's decision, the issue of buying out the bond may
never occur (unless there are some other organisations willing to
fork out the money).
Years ago, my elder brother wanted to buy out his bond to start his
own dental practice. My parents said that he will have to solve his
own problem. Fortunately for him, he was released from his bond early
because at that time, there were a glut of dental officers in the
government's dental clinics.
My younger sister is currently serving out her bond with the Health
Ministry. Same sets of rules apply. If she wants to join a private
medical practice or set up one on her own, she'll have to find the
money herself.
In my case, I was fortunate in that my UK scholarship did not come
with a bond. Still, I stayed and worked in a UK university for 2 1/2
years before returning to Singapore. Sort of like serving my bond.
:-) :-)
If I can afford the luxury of having children and supporting them,
I guess I'll apply the same set of rules.
--
ARCHer
Arthur Dent
Yong-Wah Goh wrote:
> I think the answer is quite obvious to many Singaporean.
> As for the issue of being young, like what I have mentioned earlier......
> the point of debate is not whether they are young or not
> but the basic value of trusts and committment.
I doubt anybody, not matter how young, would sign a bond without intending to
serve it.
Do you realize how much they would have to fork out to buy themselves out?
The entire cost of the scholarship with a high interest rate tacked on.
> It doesn't mean that if you are young and that you cannot decide
> what you want in life, you can also forget about honouring the
> term and conditions of the agreement you made. Lack of maturity and
> experience do not equate to trust, committment and responsibility.
> You made a mistake you bear the responsibility disregards whether you
> are talented or not.
True, but the fact is they have honored the terms of the contract requiring
them to pay up.Or else be like MINDEF, which offers scholarships without the
opportunity to break the bond.
It is easy to say that these scholars should be able to decide what they want
in life. Some are, other aren't.
In the 4 years they are overseas, many things can change. Even when 2 years
of JC, a lot of
students who wanted to be doctors or lawyers, etc. ended up pursuing other
courses of study.
To compund this, students in US universities are exposed to a wide variety of
courses and research
opportunities, some compulsory, others taken out of interest, and some
students really discover their
passion after this. In fact, a lot of American students come to university
without an idea about what to
major in, or what they want to work as when they graduate, and the job of the
university is to help them
find their area of interest, and through internships, career fairs, etc. help
them find the right jobs.
Perhaps a shortcoming of the S'porean education system is the lack of
flexibility in this area,
being streamed into science or arts from Sec 3 and in JC. So should it be so
surprising
that scholars should change their minds abt what they want after 4 years
spent in an environment
geared towards helping undergrads find their niche in life and in the working
world?
Maybe what bond-breakers should do is pay a penalty for breaking the bond,
which is exactly what
they did. They have paid the price, and borne the responsibility for their
actions.
So why is there a need to publish their names as well?
Dinesh Naidu
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong wrote:
> On 2 Mar 1998 13:37:38 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote and I quote:
>
> >:It doesn't mean that if you are young and that you cannot decide
> >:what you want in life, you can also forget about honouring the
> >:term and conditions of the agreement you made. Lack of maturity and
> >:experience do not equate to trust, committment and responsibility.
> >:You made a mistake you bear the responsibility disregards whether you
> >:are talented or not.
>
> Oh but the bond-breakers did honour the *terms and conditions* of the
> scholarship agreement. They paid the liquidated damages demanded by their
> ex-sponsors, as stated under the agreement.
are we saying that just because a relationship between two parties has in their
contract certain penalties spelt out in the event of one party offending the other,
there is no immorality committed by the offender to the extent that he willingly
suffers his punishment?
the laws of the land protect each of you from harm from me, should i feel inclined
to go out and attack and kill one of you. of course, its hard to force people to act
as we like (just like it is hard to force the scholars to stay if they don't want
to: hence scholarship providers are forced to consider the possibility of the bond
being broken). so if i went and killed someone and happily faced punishment, the
death penalty, say, does that negate the immorality of my act? likewise, the
scholars have entered into a relationship with the scholarship providers. regardless
of how many people or how few wanted the scholarship or want it now under new terms,
the fact is promises were made by both parties to each other. when you make a
promise, my sense of morality tells me, you ought to keep it. breaking the bond,
because something more important/fun/profitable/interesting came up and saying oh,
its ok, i'll pay the penalty, is all very neat, legally: you transgress, you pay.
but, as far as i can see, it is equally clear morally, you transgress, you have done
a bad thing, no two ways about it. the motives behind the two parties at the time of
the scholarship award and acceptance, the maturity of the parties or their other
opportunities etc.. are really quite unrelated.
i think the issue is simple and there is no need to demonize either the scholarship
providers or scholars. yes, the bond breakers have committed an immoral act, but
don't get hysterical. its disturbing to see the debate take one tones of envy or
class hatred - those things are irrelevant. i think naming the scholars is entirely
appropriate - although i wouldn't suggest anything beyond it - morality is in the
end between you and your own conscience. at the end of the day you will have to
answer for your actions and pay the price either in terms of the knowledge of having
been bad, or, if there is a God and heaven and hell or karma or some such afterlife
deal, in some other way. in any case, if these 18 year olds are really so bright,
they should learn to think carefully about what they want and about their ability to
keep their promises. its important to learn that one's word, honour, trustworthiness
and truthfulness are important things - its part of becoming and adult isn't it?
Europa
> The bond breakers have paid their penalty.
> The institutions take further actions.
> The point of debate: Should the Bond breaker bear that too?
> I reckon at this point in time, yes......
> What the institutions did was to bring their name out in the public.
> I think the bond breaker should bear it, after all they did wrong first.
okay let's get off our high horses and discuss this rationally.
you sponsor my studies overseas for 3-4 years. i am therefore indebt to you.
in repayment, i agree to work for you. however i find out working for you
is not what it's all cracked up to be. therefore i request that i am released
from your employment. under our agreement i had to repay my bond. fine i do
that. where is the wrong in this? my penalty for breaking the bond is repaying
the bond. that is a clause in the contract that i signed with you. how can this
be wrong? well, if i ran away without paying my bond,then i see why you would
want to let everyone know about it and thus bring shame to me. otherwise, i
don't see the wrong.
> .........they were the only who break the trust and agreement made between
> them and the insitutions. What the insitutions have done at this point is
> merely bring their name out. Yes Lost of face, but wouldn't the very act of
> dishonouring your committment and promise be already face loosing act?
this trust and agreement also includes the clause of buying out the rest of
the term of my service bny repaying the bond. remember that.
Yong-Wah Goh
Here's my view JinHong.....
lima...@pobox.org.sg (Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong) writes:
>On 2 Mar 1998 13:36:45 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote and I quote:
><snip>
>I find your readiness to stereotype would-be scholars somewhat offensive, having
>been an aspiring scholar not so long ago (well actually it's been 3-4 years),
>and knowing many scholars myself. It pins all these pre-conceptions and
>stereotypes onto them.
Sorry but do you see me as stereotyping all would be scholars?
or are you jumping into conclusion about my comments?
>Firstly, I think most scholars just want to go overseas for a good education
>without burdening their parents. That's not to say NUS/NTU is bad, just that if
>you can get a good education, get to stay in a foreign country for 3-4 years,
>and all at somebody else's expense, then why, it sounds like a mighty good
>proposition (or it should).
It sure does, but do you also feel a sense of obligation to "pay back"?
To do something in return?
>I think it's too presumptuous to attach all these motives to would-be scholars.
>I daresay at 19-20, most people tend not to have such lofty aspirations as
>serving the country, and anyone talking that way is just doing it for PR.
That I feel is either your beliefs or the beliefs of most Young Singaporean
which I say is a very very sad thing.
>Further, what is so wrong with seeing scholarships as a path to material
>success? I think that's a bit of win-win thinking; I can get to be well-off
>working for my sponsor, and my sponsor benefits from my working there. To
>require scholars to have such a wide-streak of altruism in there is being naive.
What is so wrong to see scholarships as a path to material success???
Seems to me that you do not see much of a difference between govt
scholarships and other institutions' scholarship.
The way you put it, I guess I can rephrase it as
"What is so wrong with being a minister (or high ranking Civil Servant)
as a path to material success?"
i.e. material sucess is the motivation for serving the country.
You see altruism in this case as naive? Thank you for your view there,
I guess you do not see that view as a problem hey?
>Similarly, how many 19/20-year-olds actually think along the lines of taking a
>scholarship to "increase market value", with an eye to quit without serving the
>bond?
Do you seriously believe that those who took up scholarship have never even
thought of the fact that their career is going to be at least above average
compared to their peers???
Isn't THAT a little naive???
>If that is true, then it is a truly damning indictment of the kind of
>people our society is producing. And as a hard-boiled cynic of many years, I am
>pleasantly surprised to realise that I don't think that's the way it really is.
Well bless your ten toes then, perhaps you might like to mix around more.
>Further, let's not forget that the damages bond-breakers pay are punitive in
>nature. Not only do they compensate the sponsor for expenditure incurred, they
>also aim to deter. In that sense, the bond-breakers are in fact paying for that
>increased "market value".
Think deeper Jin Hong.....what we have here is a situation whereby
monetary compensation did not work on them.....They still break the bond!
Now, have you ever thought that nowadays in such a competitive market,
it is not that difficult to break bonds??? e.g. A company can offer you a job
and offer to pay your penalty. Don;t forget you are a scholar..... a top
grade talent. The reality is that we have people breaking the bond even if
it means them having to pay the money back. The point is this.......
if they can do it, other will and can. Now How do we deal with it???
>For the first time in a really long time ie. as far back as I can remember, I
>find myself agreeing with Tan Sai Siong in today's ST Perspective. She makes a
>cogent argument for sponsors to get off their moral high-horses, simply because
>they do require liquidated damages from bond-breakers.
Well.....that is a very interesting point.....perhaps she would also agree
that we should not longer put any moral meaning to many of the things the govt.
do, let just turn the entire govt. into hard core business logic, where
profit and productivity counts more than any thing else.
>Trust me, it hurts me a hell of a lot to say that :).
I know.
yong wah
Yong-Wah Goh
Interesting points about how the govt. too aren't really that
"hornorable" from Autolycus.....and he/she went on giving examples......
sems to justify Hector's act and made his seems like a pinic at
the botanic garden under a shady rain forest tree.
Because others are bastard, there fore I can be one too, so long as
I do not out do them???
Is that the logic of your comments???
I hope not.
yong wah
Yong-Wah Goh
Just a response to the comments made in the previous post.....
lets take the argument that so long as you pay back the bond......
you'll be free and perfectly alright to break the bond. No problem
with that and morally right to do so.
Is that an absolute term or conditional???
Do you mean to say that so long as I have the means to pay back the
penalty placed on me for breaking the bond......it is perfactly okay
that I break the bond, no moral issues involved???
It seems that that is a view held by many discussing this issue.
i.e. holding an absolute view.
If that is perfectly okay then the following would be morally right and
no problem what so ever........
1) Got a SAF scholarship to go overseas.......got the degree......Singapore
in a state of conflict with another country, decided not to
comeback, found a way to pay back the bond......broke the bond.....
morally alright to do that?
2) Got a govt. scholarship to go overseas.......going to be a civil
servent.....after graduation.....a private company there offer him/her a job
with better prospect and offer to pay the penalty......broke the bond.....
nothing morally wrong with that too?
3) Got a scholarship to specialised in a field that Singapore is desperately
in need of, went overseas got the degree decided it is better to live
there than in Singapore, found a way to break the bond and
broke it......morally alright?
I" can perhaps go on with more extreme examples.....what I am trying to get at h
ere is this......I noticed many people accuse me and perhaps even Edmund of
standing on moral high ground and bashing the poor scholars, that
so long as they pay for their bonds.....it's perfectly okay.
That seems too simplistic to me and
very disturbing.
Disturbing because they seems to have separated the moral issue from the
tachnical issue without realisingthe implication of their statement.
By saying that they have paid their penalty, i.e. paying back the
money spent on them, they are perfectly alright to leave and no
moral implication should be involved there! It's like saying......
"I have a loging company, and I just cleared off a vast stretch of
rain forest in that region, destroying many species's habitat and
native's livelihood. But I compensate them based on the rules and
regulations set by the law......therefore it is perfectly okay
that I go on clearing the rainforest"
So long as you fulfill the terms and conditions required to break the bond
no moral issues can be discussed then. If that is what these people are
meant to say......then it means to many that it is perfectly alright
to break the bond or your committment to the govt. and to the cause
anytime you wish so long as you can pay them back or fullfil the
requirements to break it! We can forget about the basic issues of promise,
committment, and trusts......or any moral issues
as moral issues are not relavent here anymore
because what is paramount or more important is
1) my self interest, and
2) I have the means to break the bond
Forget about obligation and all that. If that is the case, I wouldn't be
surprise if it is viewed alright that you can break relation
with your parents if somehow you can calculate and pay back the
amount of emotional, monetary and what not expenses they spend on you!
of course some would say, well that is different.....well where lies the
difference then? Can some of these differences be applied to the
issue of committment to the sate?
Some how, there is something more involved in govt. bonds than just simple
contract signed between two parties. I tend to see govt. bond as
something more.......the basic idea lies in working in the govt. to
serve the country (that's why they are called civil servants).......
and to serve the country means much more.....
it seems that many are holding the view that serving the country is no
different from working in a bank or an MNC.......that is
rather disturbing to me.
yong wah
Autolycus
Yong-Wah Goh wrote:
> I hope you are not saying that in cases like this there is no
> ground for discussing moral issues.
> yong wah
My dear Yong Wah,
You are assuming that morality is a one-way street. It is a false assumption.
1) Any definition of morality must assume a society.
2) If the society puts material things (inducements, incentives, etc) at the
forefront, then any useful morality must make allowance for this.
3) Since the PAP plays dirty (as you say, 'bastard'), then it must be OK,
since the PAP is essentially the only game in town.
Therefore, ifthe government tries to buy your soul, you should get out as
soon as you can repurchase your soul.
I notice you cleverly juxtapose multiple cases into single cases (e.g. what
if you are bonded - a financial contract with a clause allowing you to
terminate it - and the country goes to war - an issue of patriotism). In such
cases, what makes you think an SAF scholar will be a better soldier than one
who is a 'free man'? Similarly, supposing I am contracted to paint your
house. Instead, I pay off your contract, then paint, redecorate and otherwise
super-improve your house since I prefer being a free agent - what would you
say?
You see, the moral issue arises only because you assume that the
bond-'breaker' will serve the country less or worse than he would when
bonded. Come on, if you were paid to do an evil thing, would a contract stop
you from getting out of it? Remember that many of the government's decisions
are not debatable if you want to remain profitably in service. Well, maybe
not evil - how about just plain incompetent?
No man can serve two masters. He will love one too much or hate the other.
And if you have personal moral values, the government should never be given
the chance to suborn them for filthy lucre. We serve free, or not at all.
Salary is only remuneration. THAT is idealism. What you suggest in its stead
is a tawdry mock-up masquerading as morality - bonds, contracts, and other
legal encumbrances, coupled with a misplaced sense of duty to a government
and not a homeland.
Sadly, I am not as idealistic as I like. I have served out my bond. However,
I continue to serve even though the bond has expired not because the pay is
good or I am under obligation, but because I love teaching - and this IS my
country, bad or good. But I will make a hellish noise if it's bad, and that's
what I do sometimes in this group... *grin*
Autolycus
ARCHer with a Broken Arrow
On 2 Mar 1998 10:09:32 +0800, Edmun...@iasos.utas.edu.au (Edmund
Chia) wrote:
>Actually, I do not find it hard to believe. It is common knowledge
>that many organizations pander to the many whims of their scholars.
>After all, these are the bright-eyed fast-tracked glory boys (and
>girls) of the organization, and would you want to piss off someone who
>might shot past you on the fast track a few years after he/she
>graduates? Moreover, the fact that many scholars DO resume studies, or
>go off on funded sabbaticals for a higher degree suggests that there
>is considerable flexibility involved.
A scholar generally have a better career path than a non-scholar,
even though the two may have a similar background and education.
Actually, I should say "a scholar from a Singapore-funded programme",
since my limited experience suggests that those scholars from a
foreign-funded programme are often treated as non-scholars.
Just look at staff development in the local tertiary institutions.
--
ARCHer
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
On 3 Mar 1998 15:18:19 +0800, Dinesh Naidu <din...@pacific.net.sg> wrote and I
quote:
>:are we saying that just because a relationship between two parties has in their
>:contract certain penalties spelt out in the event of one party offending the other,
>:there is no immorality committed by the offender to the extent that he willingly
>:suffers his punishment?
I don't really understand what you're saying here. The second part of the
statement.
But I do know what I'm saying, which is that when two parties make a contract
with both eyes open (and believe you me, EDB's bargaining position is always
going to be far stronger than the would-be scholar's, glut of scholarships or
not), and that contract includes clauses dictating the liquidated damages
payable in the case of a breach, then moral considerations need not enter the
picture, because those liquidated damages would by definition cover the innocent
party's loss due to the breach.
>:the laws of the land protect each of you from harm from me, should i feel inclined
>:to go out and attack and kill one of you. of course, its hard to force people to act
>:as we like (just like it is hard to force the scholars to stay if they don't want
>:to: hence scholarship providers are forced to consider the possibility of the bond
>:being broken). so if i went and killed someone and happily faced punishment, the
>:death penalty, say, does that negate the immorality of my act? likewise, the
>:scholars have entered into a relationship with the scholarship providers. regardless
>:of how many people or how few wanted the scholarship or want it now under new terms,
>:the fact is promises were made by both parties to each other.
I think the crux lies here. What you (and a host of others, including NCB and
EDB) are saying is that the scholars promised to serve out the bond. Whatever
happens. Notwithstanding the presence of the liquidated damages clause, the
promise is to serve out the bond, and if they break it then they're scum of the
earth.
Ask yourself: what is the purpose of the liquidated damages clause? If the true
situation is as above, then why have the liquidated damages clause then? No. The
scholar agreed to the scholarship *as a whole*, and that means the scholar
agreed to *all* the terms, including both the bond term and the liquidated
damages clause.
So I think it's far more realistic and fair, to say that the scholar has
promised to serve out the bond, *OR* pay the damages in lieu.
>:when you make a
>:promise, my sense of morality tells me, you ought to keep it. breaking the bond,
>:because something more important/fun/profitable/interesting came up and saying oh,
>:its ok, i'll pay the penalty, is all very neat, legally: you transgress, you pay.
It's not a matter of paying for transgressions. It's more akin to 2 choices:
serve or pay. And last I heard, exercising a right to choose between 2 options,
neither of which are harmful to anyone else, isn't immoral.
>:the motives behind the two parties at the time of
>:the scholarship award and acceptance, the maturity of the parties or their other
>:opportunities etc.. are really quite unrelated.
Tell that to Phillip Yeo, erstwhile chairman of EDB. He is of the opinion that
these chaps have to be punished because they had accepted the scholarships with
a view to being able to parade the tag of "EDB scholar", and with an eye to
breaking the bonds to cash in on that tag.
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
On 3 Mar 1998 15:18:06 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote and I quote:
<snip>
You've *almost* got it.
>:I'll break it, and heck my promised and committment to the
>:EDB.
No. You did not simply abandon your commitment to EDB. Your commitment to EDB
was to serve them for the bond duration, *OR* pay them liquidated damages in
lieu. If you pay them the damages *they* set at the outset, then you have
fulfilled your obligations under the scholarship contract. It's not like you got
a free education.
>:I hope you are not saying that in cases like this there is no
>:ground for discussing moral issues.
I am saying that in commercial cases like this, there is no ground for
discussing moral issues.
xjh <lima...@pobox.org.sg> <x...@pinky-and-the-brain.com>
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
On 3 Mar 1998 13:09:59 +0800, "cmukid" <cmu...@earthlink.net> wrote and I quote:
>:So, are you saying that:
>:1. Suppose you and I had a contract for some transaction,
>:2. And that for whatever reasons you reneged your part of the deal,
>:3. But paid in full all compensations due to me which were stated in the
>:contract (but which did not allow nor prohibit public naming),
>:4. And that, after receiving such compensations from you in full, I still
>:publicized your name and your actions to shame you
>:that you have no legal grounds to sue me for defaming your reputation?
If in 4., your statement was only to the effect that I had broken my contract
and I had paid damages in full as required under the contract, then yes, I have
no legal grounds to sue you. Why should I, you're only stating the truth.
How it works is, yes I am guilty of defaming you. But no I don't have to pay you
any damages, because I have the defence of justification, ie. the statement is
completely true.
I am of the opinion that this society should not penalise anybody for stating
the truth, regardless of any possible damage to anybody. So long as it is the
truth, I don't see why that person should be penalised.
>:If so, then I must say that this creates a frightening climate in which to
>:do business, since the wronged party in a contract has powers beyond what
>:was agreed upon, and can exercise these powers with impunity.
Why? I may have breached the contract, but I paid you in good faith. I may have
very good reasons for breaching the contract. It comes down to the spin put on
the situation, and the perceiver's personal beliefs, biases, preconceptions and
misconceptions.
>:Bear in mind that establishing actual damage/loss is a different matter,
>:and does not prevent a lawsuit from actually being filed. If you recall
>:the GCT vs JBJ case: GCT conceded there was no loss to his reputation
>:caused by JBJ, but that did not prevent him from suing his opponent, and
>:even getting some compensation in the end.
True. But there is a fundamental difference, because the loss caused to
scholarship sponsors is far easier quantify than the damage caused by
defamation. In fact, for defamation, the presumption is that there has been
damage. However, for contract cases, you cannot claim for damages which you
cannot prove.
Edmund Chia
On 3 Mar 1998 01:17:42 +0800, auto...@pacific.net.sg (Autolycus)
wrote:
>I mean, if Goh Chok Tong's son can pay off the balance of his bond, does
>it mean that he was dishonourable? And if so, what of the parents who
>concurred with his decision? Are they dishonourable too? I don't think so.
IMHO Yes!!! YES!!!
>And what of the society which drove this young man to do such a 'heinous'
>deed?
What is this - now we blame society for one person's decision to break
his promise. No sir, it was not my fault that I raped and killed that
woman - its society's fault. Well I gues it can be - IF you believe in
determinism, and not in free will.
>Just like the students under my care... some of who will become scholars
>someday. Maybe they too will face the choice of courageous Hector Yee, of
>whether to remain bound or to pay off an encumbrance. It is not that
If I had students under my care, I would like to think that I would
encourage them to keep their word, to honor their promises - even when
doing so is inconvenient, perhaps even unpleasant. To do the right
thing - even when it is unpleasant is IMHO an act of courage - having
enough money or getting mommy to pay off an encumbrance is not my idea
of courage. Of course, it would all depend on whether you believe that
your word is worth something - apparently in Singapore - the worth of
one's commitment is measured not by the weight that one places on
one's gven word, but by the amount of money one can raise to pay
liquidated damages. Guess that means the poor must honor their
commitments whereas they rich can do as they please if they can afford
to pay.
Edmund
For some, the value of a promise lies not in the giving,
but in the keeping.
Nasty Ace
Edmund Chia (Edmun...@iasos.utas.edu.au) wrote:
: To do the right
: thing - even when it is unpleasant is IMHO an act of courage - having
: enough money or getting mommy to pay off an encumbrance is not my idea
: of courage. Of course, it would all depend on whether you believe that
: your word is worth something - apparently in Singapore - the worth of
: one's commitment is measured not by the weight that one places on
: one's gven word, but by the amount of money one can raise to pay
: liquidated damages. Guess that means the poor must honor their
: commitments whereas they rich can do as they please if they can afford
: to pay.
I agree with you and think it is justified for EDB & NCB to name
scholars. It certainly isn't libel, or slander, as much as EDB and
NCB seems to hope it will be.
But for you to go as far as to say that it is morally *wrong* for the
scholars to break their bonds, I must protest.
Three things :
Morality
1) You believe that serving out a scholarship is a *right* thing.
That is a large presupposition, which may or may not be true.
And in this case, you are imposing your overarching (and misguided
in my opinion) sense of morality on the scholar, who obviously
does not agree with you.
Commitment
2) You also choose to ignore the fact that contractual obligation goes
both ways. I am obligated to honor my contract, I am *not*
obligated to serve you. Furthermore, *you* are obligated to honor
the contract *you* constructed for me as well. That being so,
you tell me I can leave if I pay a bond, then my exercising this
option obligates you to release me without further duress...
The Poor
3) The poor has always been the underdog. That is by construction
a facet of modern society. In a society propelled by currency,
of course being poor imposes restrictions. Unless you want to
drastically change the way our society works, you are not saying
anything useful in the last line.
The last is perhaps a topic for another discussion, but just wanted to
let you know that you didn't really make any argument in that last line.
Regards, case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| casey tan |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| e-mail : kha...@wharton.upenn.edu |
| telephone : (215) 387-3492 |
| snail mail : 20 South 39th Street, Apt N4, Philadelphia, PA 19104 |
| url : http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~tankh |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Make me a witness
take me out
out of darkness
out of doubt."
"Witness"
by Sarah McLachlan
rl...@cisco.com
1) Autolycus is not trying to justify Hector Yee's act of paying punitive
damages to free himself from the bond. Autolycus is trying to remind all of
us to get down from our moral high horses and stop pointing fingers at the
three scholars, denouncing their acts as examples of grave "immorality".
2) This whole issue is so much a "log in your own eyes" case of hypocrisy.
Why are we calling "paying punitive damages" immoral when there are more cases
of "immorality" out there? Has the government published the names of children
who disregard their filial obligations by abandoning their parents? Has the
government publicly denounced men who abandoned their wives and children for
their mistresses? Are these not moral obligations too? If we can so easily
ignore these facts, why make such a fuss over the scholars "paying punitive
damages"?
3) To make matters clear, (statutory board = political parties = government =
country) is a false perception. Freeing yourself from a statutory board bond
does not amount to treason.
4) "Paying punitive damages" do not make someone a "bastard".
5) The scholars are not trying to "outdo" anyone. They merely want to pursue
an alternate legal course of action, which they are entitled to. This is a
basic human right.
6) Hector Yee should be allowed to pursue greater knowledge to benefit his
country. If NCB gave him the flexibility and choice to do so, he may not have
paid the punitive damages to free himself from the bond. If the Singapore
statutory boards are so concerned with cultivating talent, why hold on to
bureaucratic "principles" to deny the development of great minds?
7) Let him/her who has not committed a single deed of "immorality" cast the
first stone.
Juventud Guerrera de la Cruz
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Yong-Wah Goh
A very interesting reply that tell me alot about your view contract.......
lima...@pobox.org.sg (Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong) writes:
>On 3 Mar 1998 15:18:06 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote and I quote:
><snip>
>You've *almost* got it.
Thanks.....
>>:I'll break it, and heck my promised and committment to the
>>:EDB.
>No. You did not simply abandon your commitment to EDB. Your commitment to EDB
>was to serve them for the bond duration, *OR* pay them liquidated damages in
>lieu. If you pay them the damages *they* set at the outset, then you have
>fulfilled your obligations under the scholarship contract. It's not like you got
>a free education.
Again you are looking purely and narrowly at the legal and technical aspect of things.....which i guess what a lawyer should do. I guess it's very similar to
the senerio of some one committed a crime but in the court of law if there
is insufficient evidence he will still be innocent even if you have seen him
done it with your own eyes but for some reasons cannot fully prove it.
Jin Hong your formula is this.....
If you sign the contract you either
1) serve the bond
2) break it and pay the penalty as set by the bond.
Strictly to that and nothing more..........
Do you think our world is as black and white as that?
1 + 1 = 2 and nothing else?
Have you serious think of the implication of your view?
What you are saying is that it is perfectly alright morally and what not
to break a promise so long as you can pay the penalty set before you sign it.
Can you see the serious flaw in that statement of yours?
>>:I hope you are not saying that in cases like this there is no
>>:ground for discussing moral issues.
>I am saying that in commercial cases like this, there is no ground for
>discussing moral issues.
I see......you view the bond and the committment to serve as a civil servant
as a comercial matter. Correct me if I am wrong, i guess you see our minister
as nothing more than high level exec. of a commercial firm?
yong wah
Yong-Wah Goh
In response to Jin Hong's comments.....
you seem to hang very tightly on the legal technical aspects of the
issue. I invite you to move out of there and look into the moral and
possibly other implications of your view that so long as they
pay the penalties.....the case is closed and no moral issues applied there
on. (hope my interpretation of your view was correct if not pleacse clarify).
yong wah
Yong-Wah Goh
It is interesting how one can selectively choose parts and bit of
comments that will suit their preconception of a person or an issue.....
1) The restriction of examples to three HAS infact been noted in that
comment as RESTRICTED. AS a means of showing a point which I was
bring across. i.e. some Scholars can be taking the scholarship
for the sake of
it rather than truelly and sincerely serious about honoring the bond.
2) As for the issue of age. I am not saying that all in absoluate term
18 and 19 should know exactly what they want in life. But rather.......
for someone who take up a scholarship of this sort to be at least
be more serious about thinking if that is what they want to head in to.
Now if they have made that serious consideration and was dead sure they
wanted to go into govt. service and later realised their path has changed
AND they break the contract. They still have broken the bond and promise
and therefore liable to be seen as not trustworthy by many. To call them ficle minded is absud.....that statement seems to suggest that these Scholars are
NOT capable of being fickle??? Hope this is not what you mean.
Hope from the above response it can be clear to you that perhaps you might have
fallen in your own preconcpetions of things and flawed in your own interpretation of my comments.
yong wah
Europa<SP...@get.some> writes:
>In a time not yet long forgotten Yong-Wah Goh <g...@psy.uq.oz.au> sayeth:
><a whole lot of flawed analysis>
>I don't even know where to start because your analysis is so full of flaws.
>the most glaring one being that you restrict the analysis to only three
>categories. surely we are not that naive. secondly, at the age of 18 or 19
>how many people really know what they want to do? to call them fickle just
>because they find out working for the govt is not their cup of tea is absurd.
>there's more but i hope this has pointed out at least some flaws with your
>analysis and hopefully this kind of stereotype will no longer exist.
>--
Europa
> ground for discussing moral issues.
moral issues are involved but what i am saying is that none of us
have any grounds to make calls on this issue when it comes to
morality.
Europa
In a time not yet long forgotten Yong-Wah Goh <g...@psy.uq.oz.au> sayeth:
> You mean when you sign the bond, you assume that apart from supporting your
> studies overseas and giving you a good career prospect, they must also
> give you a work environment that is to your satisfaction? That that is part\
> of the bond's deal as well???
> I never heard of that in any bond's contract for that matter!!!
> And if now you somehow realised that "working in a satisfactory environment"
> is not part of the deal.....I think it is better that you do not sign
> the contract then!
working in a non-satisfactory environment in never part of the deal, that's why
the buy-out clause is ALWAYS included in a bond. just as an employee does not
wish to continue working in an unsatisfactory environment, neither does an
employer wish to have a disgruntled employee in his/her fold. even the govt
understands that.
as for accussing people who leave because of an unsatisfactory environment as
being spoilt brats, you probably just accused almost everyone who has switched
jobs as a spoilt brat. how accurate is your accusation, i'll let everyone make
their own call.
> Every extension comes with a bond, that is a deal......if you do not want it
> simply DO NOT SIGN IT!!!
and every extension also comes with a buy-out clause. duh!
Edmund Chia
On 2 Mar 1998 13:38:24 +0800, Europa<SP...@get.some> wrote:
>I don't think most of the people want to be named when they win a scholarship,
>at least among my friends they don't. They just want a scholarship so they can
>get the best education available. You insinuate stuff that you don't know about
>and this bitter tone is not appreciated, especially since most of my friends are
>scholars who received the more prestigious ones. They have every intention of serving
>out their bonds but they are not sure if working for the govt is the best environment
>for them. I wonder how you would feel if you were working in an environment you didn't
>like. Maybe you won't be so loud with your complaints if you weren't from the outside
>looking in.
Many of my friends are also scholars, and they have also considered
the issue of breaking their bonds. I am even about to be married to
someone who will be on a bond. And even though they are my friends,
and remain my friends, we can and we do disagree on whether it is
right of them to break their bond without a very strong cause.
And I HAVE worked in an environment that I did not like, and I stuck
to it, as did many others beside me, because as anyone who has working
experience would tell you - working life is not easy, and only a
spoilt brat insists on getting his/her way all the time. Most people
simply soldier on and hope for an improvement.
>I don't. As for your common knowledge, I don't know where you get it from.
>Every extension comes with another bond, which means working longer in a place
>you don't want to be in the first place.
An "extension" does not come with another bond. A "new" scholarship
does. When you are given a scholarship for an undergraduate degree,
and then decide to take up a "Masters" that is not usually considered
an extension, that is usually considered a "fresh" scholarship.
Certainly most, if not all university administrations would consider
it a separate degree and not the extension of an on-going course.
The point was made that scholars had every reason to break their bond
because their sponsors would not have allowed them undertake further
studies. The example of that NCB scholar was cited to suggest that
sponsors like EDB/NCB did not permit postgrad studies, and hence they
were 'forced' to resign in order to undertake such studies - EVEN
THOUGH they were willing to return and serve out their bond with
EBD/NCB. Therefore, if as you say, they simply did not wish to return
to serve - because they did not like the environment, then they are
simply being disingenuous when further studies was offered as an
excuse - especially as the EDB/NCB does offer scholars an option to
pursue postgrad studies.
Edmund Chia
On 2 Mar 1998 13:37:59 +0800, "cmukid" <cmu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On second thought, I think this public naming/shaming idea will fall flat
>on its face, leaving only EDB/NCB the worse for the negative reputation it
>has generated for itself.
Frankly speaking - as far as I am concerned, whether this public
shaming approach works or not is beside the point. My concern is not
the EDB/NCB response, it is the apparently prevalent attitude that so
long as you have the money to pay liquidated damages, a breach of
faith is acceptable regardless of the reasons.
Edmund Chia
On 2 Mar 1998 09:51:09 +0800, leo...@webcom.com (Samuel Leong) wrote:
> In politics, things are not so honorable. Governments often break
>election promises without even a twinge of remorse.
If the government breaks a promise than let us take them to task for
that breach of faith. Let us not excuse a broken promise unless there
is very good cause to do so. Let us encourage a society where promises
are MEANT to be kept.
You and I must have had tasks that we would much rather not perform.
Indeed, most of us must have been confronted by obligations that we
would must rather avoid. How we responded reflects on our character.
If my parents quit every job that they disliked than they would not
have been able to raise my sister and I. The fact is when you made a
commitment, you should see it through. If for some reason, something
occurs to prevent you from honoring your commitment - fine - I can
accept that and understand that you did your best. However, it is one
thing to do your best and fail, and quite another to say that you have
no moral obligation to honor a commitment so long as you are rich
enough to make your obligation 'go away."
Yong-Wah Goh
None of us have any grouonds to make calls on this issue when it comes to
morallity??? Tell me then what grounds do we need before we can
make calls on this issue???
I am very interested in knowing......please answer.
Thanks
yong wah
Europa<SP...@get.some> writes:
>In a time not yet long forgotten Yong-Wah Goh <g...@psy.uq.oz.au> sayeth:
>> I hope you are not saying that in cases like this there is no
>> ground for discussing moral issues.
>moral issues are involved but what i am saying is that none of us
>have any grounds to make calls on this issue when it comes to
>morality.
>--
Ray Ng W.L.
Dear Edmund,
It is cleary wrong/immoral to frivolously break a scholarship bond upon
graduation, just because one can afford to buy him/herself out. (Tho there
are gray areas - pls see my other article).
Like you, I feel strongly that one should honour's one's word/promise.
But, a scholarship is not a verbal agreement. The terms and conditions of
the scholarship are spelled out clearly in the contract, which in fact
allows a legal option out.
It is clearly not a breach of contract. But is it, like you say, a "breach
of faith" i.e. a breach of trust based on good faith?
If it can be established that the agreement between sponsor & scholar is
MORE than that covered by the contract, that there is some kind of
implicit moral obligation, then bond-breaking is immoral.
But if it cannot be established as such, but still insisting that
bond-breaking is equivalent to not keeping one's word... is it a case of
too much integrity?
Best Regards,
Ray Ng W.L.
Europa
> morallity??? Tell me then what grounds do we need before we can
> make calls on this issue???
> I am very interested in knowing......please answer.
by what standards do you judge morality?
is it a standard accepted by ALL?
now do you see my point about difficulty in making moral
judgements?
i ask again, do you know every detail of the affair or what
the local media filters out for you? do you think with this
filtered account, you will be able to make a knowledgeable
moral judgements?
Europa
> in a state of conflict with another country, decided not to
> comeback, found a way to pay back the bond......broke the bond.....
> morally alright to do that?
> 2) Got a govt. scholarship to go overseas.......going to be a civil
> servent.....after graduation.....a private company there offer him/her a job
> with better prospect and offer to pay the penalty......broke the bond.....
> nothing morally wrong with that too?
> 3) Got a scholarship to specialised in a field that Singapore is desperately
> in need of, went overseas got the degree decided it is better to live
> there than in Singapore, found a way to break the bond and
> broke it......morally alright?
i hope you have read "To Kill A Mockingbird". In that book, Harper talks
about wearing someone's shoes and walking around in them (metaphorically
speaking of course) and only then truly being able to understand them.
I don't intend to make a moral judgement on the three scholars, nor do I
intend to. No, I am not claiming they are saints or that they are devils
or bastards or whatever. I can't and neither can you, Yong Wah. Why? Because
you're from the outside looking in. The 3 scenarios that you depicted above,
are possible, in fact maybe real in some cases. But to simplify one's choices
in life like that can only be naive. The only call that you or I can make is
whether the breaking of the bond is fair or not. In this case, it is. I don't
see how any of us can make a moral judgement on this issue since none of us
are really involved in it. True, it may be a disturbing trend because the
govt is losing some of its best talents but to simply attribute to personal
greed is simplistic. It takes two hands to clap they say, may be there might
be something turning off some scholars in the govt?
Yong-Wah Goh
A good responds there Edmund concerning the power of money!
i have seen mini cases of that, how money can be used as a mean to justify
an act that is wrong. e.g. illegal parking and didn't mind being fined because
he has the money to pay the fine, paying a deposit for some work and cancel
it last minute when the workers have gotten the tools all set to get the job
done because he can afford to forgo the deposit, Speeding again didn't give
a damn about it because he can afford the fine.
The case of bond breaking can well be another example
of this act. what erks me most is to hear people saying that everything is
fine so long as you can pay the penalty. Those scholars who break the bond
may well have heaps of very good reasons, but it still does not negate the
nature of the act which is breaking of one committment and promise which is
WRONG. To say that it is alright as they have paid the penalty would only
trivialised the very act of breaking one's promise/committment and may even
justify it in the minds of some. SO please, if you really want to say that
it is okay as he has paid the penalty then at least have the decency
to add that it is still wrong to break the bond because it violate the basic
issue of trust and committment which cannot be justified by mere cash payback.
Other wise, there will be people in the future making use of the bond to
get into some world class overseas uni which they may not be able to with their
own attempt for example, with the intention to break it because they have the
money to pay the penalty! that is an abuse of the bond system.......and
for someone who has the belief that things are okay so long as i can pay
off the penalty, he/she will not hesitate to take up some govt. bond like
SAF overseas scholarship and break it when the time comes....(perhaps in times
of conflict with other coountry).....and feel nothing wrong with it.
that is disturbing.
yong wah
Yong-Wah Goh
Points to consider......
rl...@cisco.com writes:
>In an unnecessarily harsh diatribe, (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote:
>>
>> Interesting points about how the govt. too aren't really that
>> "hornorable" from Autolycus.....and he/she went on giving examples......
>> sems to justify Hector's act and made his seems like a pinic at
>> the botanic garden under a shady rain forest tree.
>> Because others are bastard, there fore I can be one too, so long as
>> I do not out do them???
>> Is that the logic of your comments???
>> I hope not.
>> yong wah
>>
>1) Autolycus is not trying to justify Hector Yee's act of paying punitive
>damages to free himself from the bond. Autolycus is trying to remind all of
>us to get down from our moral high horses and stop pointing fingers at the
>three scholars, denouncing their acts as examples of grave "immorality".
1) Was Hector's acts one of GRAVE IMMORALITY??? Or was Autolycus exagerrating
it him/her self??? For my side I see it as a case of some
one doing something that is wrong but not GRAVELY WRONG. I als do see
that by saying everything is okay so long as you can pay off the penalty
as claimed by some can and will lead to future acts that are greavely wrong.
>2) This whole issue is so much a "log in your own eyes" case of hypocrisy.
>Why are we calling "paying punitive damages" immoral when there are more cases
>of "immorality" out there? Has the government published the names of children
>who disregard their filial obligations by abandoning their parents? Has the
>government publicly denounced men who abandoned their wives and children for
>their mistresses? Are these not moral obligations too? If we can so easily
>ignore these facts, why make such a fuss over the scholars "paying punitive
>damages"?
2) A fair enough comments criticising on the govt.'s actions and 'i have no
problem with that. But do you think that those who call "paying punitive
demages" immoral will not call children disregarding their parents immoral?
I think people here in the internet will......and will not ignore this
act if brought up here.
>3) To make matters clear, (statutory board = political parties = government =
>country) is a false perception. Freeing yourself from a statutory board bond
>does not amount to treason.
3) Do we have to wait till only treason to occur before we cast the stone?
>4) "Paying punitive damages" do not make someone a "bastard".
4) Is that an absolute statement or a conditional one???
'cos if it is absolute, then by the principle of "Paying punitive
damages does not make someone a bastard" would apply to someone who
park his car illegally causing troubles to others because he doesn't care
and do not mind paying punitive demages because he can afford to!
This guy is therefore NOT a bastard......right?
>5) The scholars are not trying to "outdo" anyone. They merely want to pursue
>an alternate legal course of action, which they are entitled to. This is a
>basic human right.
5)Basic human right??? Is that an absolute term again or a conditional one???
Joe has the basic right to talk about anything that he believes is true for
example all Chinese are scum-bags greedy pigs (sorry for the strong words)......do we then just stand back and not say or do anything because it is
his human right? Human right does not always equate moral rights nor any other
forms of rights. Human rights must come with responsibility....otherwise
we'll have a case similar to what we see here in Australia with Pauline Hanson.
>6) Hector Yee should be allowed to pursue greater knowledge to benefit his
>country. If NCB gave him the flexibility and choice to do so, he may not have
> paid the punitive damages to free himself from the bond.
6) They did not give hime flexibility??? I thought one can go on further
study once they work for three years??? May be it was hector who did
not give himself flexibility.....by insisting that he must continue with
his study instead of taking time off to work then continue later.
> If the Singapore
>statutory boards are so concerned with cultivating talent, why hold on to
>bureaucratic "principles" to deny the development of great minds?
6) This sounds like a remark of a spoiled brat where everything is me me me
I come first.........yeah because they are great minds, one should
kow tow to all their demands.......the insitutions have spents heaps of
money on you letting you do your study supporting your fees and all other
expenses......all they ask is you come back and work for them.....but you want
more.....and if they don't you leave.
>7) Let him/her who has not committed a single deed of "immorality" cast the
>first stone.
7) if that is the case, do not complain or report to the police and ask for
prosecution when someone broke into your house or your neightbour house
and did something nasty
to you or anyone close to you.
yong wah
Yong-Wah Goh
Edmun...@iasos.utas.edu.au (Edmund Chia) writes:
>On 2 Mar 1998 13:37:59 +0800, "cmukid" <cmu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On second thought, I think this public naming/shaming idea will fall flat
>>on its face, leaving only EDB/NCB the worse for the negative reputation it
>>has generated for itself.
>Frankly speaking - as far as I am concerned, whether this public
>shaming approach works or not is beside the point. My concern is not
>the EDB/NCB response, it is the apparently prevalent attitude that so
>long as you have the money to pay liquidated damages, a breach of
>faith is acceptable regardless of the reasons.
>Edmund
>For some, the value of a promise lies not in the giving,
>but in the keeping.
I for one second Edmund's concerned. It seems that people are very good
at using the legal/technical aspects of things and divorcd themselves
from the moral and deeper implications of their beliefs.
This is just one of the many examples of situations where people seem to be
unaware or blinded of the deeper side of things and dwelving on the
surface contentedly. Another good example is how some people redicule the
idea of taking a more serious approach to our environment citing our way of
life and makeup of our society as reasons for not putting emphasis on the issue.e.g. we do not have time to think of that, our livelihood is more important
why waste time on that?, Singapore is just a city no natural resources what
environmental issues to worry about.
wonder how these people feel when the Haze came?
yong wah
ARCHer with a Broken Arrow
On 4 Mar 1998 09:29:46 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote:
[ Snip ]
>Do you think our world is as black and white as that?
>1 + 1 = 2 and nothing else?
[ Snip ]
It is precisely that the world is not black and white which requires
us to use a more "objective" definition. The momemnt we talk about
morality, we will need to define it. One can say that
a) it is morally wrong (pardon the split infinitive) for the
sponsor to dangle a piece of candy in front of someone who
has no idea what the future is in store
b) it is morally wrong for the recipient to accept the scholarship
when he/she has no idea of what the future holds. Hmmm.....
reminds me of stories whereby daughters sell themselves to raise
funds for their parents' burial :-)
--
ARCHer
ARCHer with a Broken Arrow
On 4 Mar 1998 09:44:28 +0800, Edmun...@iasos.utas.edu.au (Edmund
Chia) wrote:
>Frankly speaking - as far as I am concerned, whether this public
>shaming approach works or not is beside the point. My concern is not
>the EDB/NCB response, it is the apparently prevalent attitude that so
>long as you have the money to pay liquidated damages, a breach of
>faith is acceptable regardless of the reasons.
Frankly speaking, my concern is the view that dangling some carrots
in front of someone gives one the moral authority to demand total
allegiance from the recipient. It does not.
To me, this is not so much of a breach of faith, but a breach of
contract. Breach of faith is more appropriate in social contracts.
--
ARCHer
ARCHer with a Broken Arrow
On 4 Mar 1998 09:43:56 +0800, Edmun...@iasos.utas.edu.au (Edmund
Chia) wrote:
>Many of my friends are also scholars, and they have also considered
>the issue of breaking their bonds. I am even about to be married to
>someone who will be on a bond. And even though they are my friends,
>and remain my friends, we can and we do disagree on whether it is
>right of them to break their bond without a very strong cause.
So if you are about to be bonded to a "bondee", that would make you
a double "bondee", right? :-)
IMHO, there is no single "strong cause" that applies to all scenarios.
What may be considered "strong" by you may not be "strong" by me.
>And I HAVE worked in an environment that I did not like, and I stuck
>to it, as did many others beside me, because as anyone who has working
>experience would tell you - working life is not easy, and only a
>spoilt brat insists on getting his/her way all the time. Most people
>simply soldier on and hope for an improvement.
Not liking the working environment and quitting as a result does not
make one a spoilt brat. For spoilt brats, they will only ruin their
own future. Would the sponsor be better off making the spoilt brat
serve out the bond? Also different people have different tolerances,
and different circumstances invoke different tolerances.
>An "extension" does not come with another bond. A "new" scholarship
>does. When you are given a scholarship for an undergraduate degree,
>and then decide to take up a "Masters" that is not usually considered
>an extension, that is usually considered a "fresh" scholarship.
>Certainly most, if not all university administrations would consider
>it a separate degree and not the extension of an on-going course.
As far as I know, most scholarships do not grant "extensions" unless
there are special circumstances.
>The point was made that scholars had every reason to break their bond
>because their sponsors would not have allowed them undertake further
>studies. The example of that NCB scholar was cited to suggest that
>sponsors like EDB/NCB did not permit postgrad studies, and hence they
>were 'forced' to resign in order to undertake such studies - EVEN
>THOUGH they were willing to return and serve out their bond with
>EBD/NCB. Therefore, if as you say, they simply did not wish to return
>to serve - because they did not like the environment, then they are
>simply being disingenuous when further studies was offered as an
>excuse - especially as the EDB/NCB does offer scholars an option to
>pursue postgrad studies.
For me, I looked at the cited reason of unsatisfactory working
environment as one possible cause for breaking the bond, rather than
the cause behind the EDB/NCB case.
As far as I know (I could be wrong here), the option to pursue
postgrad studies (2nd scholarship) often require the scholarship
holder to first serve out part of the bond attached to the undergrad
scholarship (1st scholarship).
Now if only all scholarships do not come with a bond... this
discussion would have been irrelevant. :-)
--
ARCHer
ARCHer with a Broken Arrow
On 4 Mar 1998 09:35:36 +0800, Europa<SP...@get.some> wrote:
>In a time not yet long forgotten Yong-Wah Goh <g...@psy.uq.oz.au> sayeth:
>
>> You mean when you sign the bond, you assume that apart from supporting your
>> studies overseas and giving you a good career prospect, they must also
>> give you a work environment that is to your satisfaction? That that is part\
>> of the bond's deal as well???
>
>working in a non-satisfactory environment in never part of the deal, that's why
>the buy-out clause is ALWAYS included in a bond. just as an employee does not
>wish to continue working in an unsatisfactory environment, neither does an
>employer wish to have a disgruntled employee in his/her fold. even the govt
>understands that.
The way I see it, providing a satisfactory working environment should
be part of the deal with the employer. It is in the interest of the
employer to look after the welfare of its employees as this will
reduce job dissatisfaction, raise morale and improve productivity.
If the sponsor wishes to retain the services of the scholarship
holder, I think it should pay more attention to the welfare and
needs of the scholarship holder. How often has the scholarship
holder receives a birthday card from the sponsor? Mind you... the
only time the scholarship holder hears from the sponsor is when
the sponsor ask the scholarship holder when he/she will be able
to commence employment. I even hear of a case where the sponsor
was not even aware that one prospective job applicant was the
recipient of its scholarship, and turned down the job applicant.
If the sponsor does not even know the prospective employee exist
before the commencement of employment, do you think that the
scholarship holder will like to work for the sponsor?
--
ARCHer
Yong-Wah Goh
On that line of logic, it still seems that you are
telling me not to for example make any moral judgement if I see
someone trying to break into another person's house or car because
hey.....I don;t know the full reasons of the guy's act
Would you also then agree that
because the standard of morality is so varied (if my interpretation of your
comments below was right)......then we must as well forget about following
the law of our land.....'cos hey whose set of moral standard is the
law of our land based on??? Note: I am following you line of logic here.
Granted I do not know the full story, are you saying becuase of that one
should not make any judgement??? Not even expressing one's point of view???
Then if that is so, not only I have to stop discussing this, almost
everyone has too and that including you because you have made a
moral stand in that passing judgement on something without knowing the full
story is wrong......now.....aren't you making a judgement in your
act of responding to my comment and the contents of your comments
too without knowing
the full story???
yong wah
Europa<SP...@get.some> writes:
>In a time not yet long forgotten Yong-Wah Goh <g...@psy.uq.oz.au> sayeth:
>> None of us have any grouonds to make calls on this issue when it comes to
>> morallity??? Tell me then what grounds do we need before we can
>> make calls on this issue???
>> I am very interested in knowing......please answer.
>by what standards do you judge morality?
>is it a standard accepted by ALL?
>now do you see my point about difficulty in making moral
>judgements?
>i ask again, do you know every detail of the affair or what
>the local media filters out for you? do you think with this
>filtered account, you will be able to make a knowledgeable
>moral judgements?
>--
Yong-Wah Goh
I think we have a break through here in Ray's comment.
Do we see govt. bond as a contract
that is morally binding as well?
I think Edmund and Me would say yes.
some would probably say no and there
lies the line that divides us perhaps.
I for one would like to know why
a govt. bond for example SAF scholarship has
no moral committment involved.
yong wah
Yong-Wah Goh
joseph,
you seems to miss the points I was getting at again........
the examples I gave were merely to show that the breaking of bond
can at times in itself a wrong doing, in fact it is a breach of trust
plain and simple.
we should not use the
cases we have now to say that it is okay for them because they have
paid the penalty and stop just there.......without making it clear to others
that the act of breaking one's bond is inherently a wrong act.
It doesn't matter if he pays or not pay the penalty. You can't just say
so long as
you can pay for the penalty it's alright.
Because if you put it in such a way, then
it is perfectly and morally right to
for example, park your car illegally and cause troubles to other people because
you don't care and can afford to pay the fine.
I don't have to learn how to drive to know that that is inherently wrong.
Of course one will say "well how about it is emergency"......a justifiable
act, but does that nullify the under lying nature of that act which is wrong?
No. So don't just superficially say that it is okay that they break the bond
so long as they have already paid the bond.
yong wah
Autolycus
This is actually Autolycus responding in lieu of Jooseph, who may not
appreciate it, but hey, this is a free debate.
BEGINQUOTE
*g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote:
QUOTE1
>On that line of logic, it still seems that you are
>telling me not to for example make any moral judgement if I see
>someone trying to break into another person's house or car because
>hey.....I don;t know the full reasons of the guy's act
Actually, Yong-Wah, what I'm saying is that there are legal offences which
are not moral offences. For example, is eating a moral offence? Of course
not. But eating in an MRT station is a legal offence. Is it a moral
offence merely because it is against the law? Of course not - in that
case, the law would become the arbiter of morality.
QUOTE2
>Would you also then agree that
>because the standard of morality is so varied (if my interpretation of your
>comments below was right)......then we must as well forget about following
>the law of our land.....'cos hey whose set of moral standard is the
>law of our land based on??? Note: I am following you line of logic here.
Why should the law of the land be based on morality at all? It is normally
based on social expediency, but social expediency, whatever commality it
shares with culture and public standards of behaviour, cannot be the root
of morality. Why? Well, divorce is legal and it is common enough to be an
important social expedient, but is it moral? That would be a debateable
issue.
QUOTE3
>Granted I do not know the full story, are you saying becuase of that one
>should not make any judgement??? Not even expressing one's point of view???
Well, expressing your point of view is fine. But be honest: you are
actually attempting to convince us of your own point of view as a valid
corpus of arguments. That, while laudable as an intellectual activity, is
not a mere expression of thought.
QUOTE4
>Then if that is so, not only I have to stop discussing this, almost
>everyone has too and that including you because you have made a
>moral stand in that passing judgement on something without knowing the full
>story is wrong......now.....aren't you making a judgement in your
>act of responding to my comment and the contents of your comments
>too without knowing the full story???
I reiterate my stand.
1) Termination of contract and consequent payment of damages is not the
same as bond-breaking. Bond-breaking is when you run off without paying.
2) Even if you don't like termination of contract being cast in this
marginally better light, bear in mind that if a scholar is incapacitated
or injured in the line of duty, the guarantors still have to pay the bond.
3) This sort of legal slavery is legal by virtue of contract, but not
necessarily moral. After all, would you call the right to dictate
someone's career choices and even public values to be a moral authority?
4) Yes, some people (including myself) have served bonds with wide-open
eyes. However, would you consider it moral to take advantage of a teenager
who may not even be old enough to be trusted to vote or enter a disco,
just because she signs a document?
5) What if I were to pay off my bond, then offer to continue working at a
lower payscale in the same statutory board? Would that be more moral,
especially since it involves considerable personal sacrifice and does not
net any advantage?
6) People like Edmund and you think that any contract which is signed
carries moral imperatives that they should not be broken. Don't forget
that the orders received at Auschwitz and in the forests of Poland were
also signed for. Would we have lauded a senior officer who disobeyed those
orders as a hero? Or would we have labelled him 'oathbreaker'?
7) I'm not saying Singapore is a fascist state, but does it then follow
that any exigency of service under bond therefore carries moral authority
and moral superiority?
8) If so, an officer of the state can do no wrong as long as he follows orders.
9) Which brings us back to the war-crimes trials and the most common
defence raised: "I followed orders. I was patriotic. I remained faithful.
I kept my oath. I served at any cost. I will pay any price." Ha. The last
is especially ironic.
Happy Goldfish-Bowl, everyone!
Autolycus
Servant of the State
--
. . **********************************************************
/b /| * Autolycus: Lone Wolf * email auto...@pacific.net.sg *
/ 3b-'-':| ==========================================================
.d~ .:::; * *
C "ò\,::@::: * MUNDUS VULT DECIPI: The world wishes to be deceived. *
C |:::::; * *
`( \ _`::; * It is up to you to decide whether to oblige or not. *
~`\`\::; * *
`~~' **********************************************************
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
On 4 Mar 1998 09:31:36 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote and I quote:
>:you seem to hang very tightly on the legal technical aspects of the
>:issue. I invite you to move out of there and look into the moral and
>:possibly other implications of your view that so long as they
>:pay the penalties.....the case is closed and no moral issues applied there
>:on. (hope my interpretation of your view was correct if not pleacse clarify).
It pre-supposes that moral aspects exist to the scholarship contract. I have yet
to see any attempt at an intellectually convincing basis for that
pre-supposition.
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
On 4 Mar 1998 09:29:46 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote and I quote:
>:Jin Hong your formula is this.....
>:If you sign the contract you either
>:1) serve the bond
>:2) break it and pay the penalty as set by the bond.
>:Strictly to that and nothing more..........
>:Do you think our world is as black and white as that?
No, but I think scholarship contracts should be as black and white as that.
After all, that's the way it is to sponsors and scholars alike. Because
scholarship contracts have now been reduced to commercial transactions and
nothing else. "Serving the country" sounds good, but I would wager that sponsors
are a lot more interested in getting "talent" into their organisations than in
"serving the country".
>:Have you serious think of the implication of your view?
>:What you are saying is that it is perfectly alright morally and what not
>:to break a promise so long as you can pay the penalty set before you sign it.
>:Can you see the serious flaw in that statement of yours?
You obviously do not get it yet. The promise was to serve OR to pay. The 2
options exist in the alternative. I can *choose*. The *choice* is there. I do
not promise to serve, and then as an afterthought say that I will pay if I do
not serve. The options are there on the contract when the scholar chooses to
sign, and they exist together.
>:I see......you view the bond and the committment to serve as a civil servant
>:as a comercial matter. Correct me if I am wrong, i guess you see our minister
>:as nothing more than high level exec. of a commercial firm?
You are wrong. Ministers are *elected* officials.
I do see Permanent Secretaries as being rather successful executives in their
chosen occupation of civil servants.
ARCHer with a Broken Arrow
On 4 Mar 1998 15:54:07 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote:
>I think we have a break through here in Ray's comment.
>Do we see govt. bond as a contract
>that is morally binding as well?
>I think Edmund and Me would say yes.
>some would probably say no and there
>lies the line that divides us perhaps.
Consider the following:
(a) You open a 1-year fixed deposit with the Bank. 3 months
down the road, interest rate goes up. You decide to
make an early withdrawal (and pay the penalty) and open
another new fixed deposit to capitalise on the higher
interest rate. Is there a moral issue here?
(b) You take out a loan from Bank A. Interest rate goes
down, and you decide to seek refinancing from Bank B.
Is there a moral issue here?
(c) You see a house you like, and obtain an option to
purchase from the owner. Two days later, you find
a better house. You decide to forfeit the option and
buy the second house. Is there a moral issue here?
As long as transactions are conducted at arms length and
in good faith, and parties are properly compensated properly
in the event of termination, I don't see the question of
morality will arise. If you are afraid of people not acting
in good-faith, change the conditions to deter such people.
--
ARCHer
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
On 4 Mar 1998 09:32:40 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote and I quote:
>:1) The restriction of examples to three HAS infact been noted in that
>: comment as RESTRICTED. AS a means of showing a point which I was
>: bring across. i.e. some Scholars can be taking the scholarship
>: for the sake of
>: it rather than truelly and sincerely serious about honoring the bond.
But these 3 examples are examples from *your* head. Are they real? Are they
reflective of true reality as it is? Do things happen that way? And even if your
views are "true" for these 3 restricted examples, does that mean that your view
of bond-breakers as immoral scum is true across-the-board?
I don't really think so.
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
On 3 Mar 1998 15:20:36 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote and I quote:
>:Sorry but do you see me as stereotyping all would be scholars?
>:or are you jumping into conclusion about my comments?
Yes. You are stereotyping because you cited only 3 exceedingly prejudicial
examples, and restricted discussion to that. It seems to imply that all scholars
act that way.
>:It sure does, but do you also feel a sense of obligation to "pay back"?
>:To do something in return?
Yes. To work in the sponsor organisation. Or if I don't, to pay them, **AS THEY
WANTED UNDER THE CONTRACT**.
>:That I feel is either your beliefs or the beliefs of most Young Singaporean
>:which I say is a very very sad thing.
I must say then, that you are riding on a moral high-horse which you claimed to
not be riding on in another post.
>:What is so wrong to see scholarships as a path to material success???
>:Seems to me that you do not see much of a difference between govt
>:scholarships and other institutions' scholarship.
FYI, NCB & EDB are statutory boards. Not quite the same as PSC scholarships.
Further, it is still unclear whether the scholars would have been attached with
private-sector firms if they had returned. Such scholarship schemes exist.
But in any case, I would still stand by my comments even if it had been a PSC
scholarship. There's more ways to serve the country than just serving the
government.
Further, examine the stated aims of the scholarships. You seem to imply a moral
component into the scholarships. But what sponsors *really* want, is to tie
"talent" to their organisations. It's the naked economic truth. There's little
morality involved in their aims. If the aim was truly to mould the cream of
Singapore's crop into more capable people, so as to serve Singapore better, then
the bond should simply be a non-negotiable bond, requiring them to stay in
Singapore for the duration.
No, the sponsors are hardly as moral and altruistic as they make themselves out
to be.
>:The way you put it, I guess I can rephrase it as
>:"What is so wrong with being a minister (or high ranking Civil Servant)
>:as a path to material success?"
No you can't. I don't see the analogy.
>:Do you seriously believe that those who took up scholarship have never even
>:thought of the fact that their career is going to be at least above average
>:compared to their peers???
>:Isn't THAT a little naive???
I think you miss the thrust of my argument. Sure, all scholars know that they
are worth that bit more. But the real problem comes in, when you start to
believe that they take scholarships with the intention to break them.
>:>If that is true, then it is a truly damning indictment of the kind of
>:>people our society is producing. And as a hard-boiled cynic of many years, I am
>:>pleasantly surprised to realise that I don't think that's the way it really is.
>:Well bless your ten toes then, perhaps you might like to mix around more.
No, I just wouldn't want to mix around whoever you mix around with.
>:Think deeper Jin Hong.....what we have here is a situation whereby
>:monetary compensation did not work on them.....They still break the bond!
Look at the number of bond-breakers, vs. the total number of scholars. I think
you'll find that only a very small proportion of scholars actually break their
bonds. So yes, the deterrence of monetary compensation does work.
Gunawan
g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote:
>Well.....that is a very interesting point.....perhaps she would also agree
>that we should not longer put any moral meaning to many of the things the govt.
>do, let just turn the entire govt. into hard core business logic, where
>profit and productivity counts more than any thing else.
I don't mean to take advantage of this opportunity to bash the
government, but in sniggering at altruism and service to the
country, LKY himself set the tone for the government when
he argued for large pay raise for Ministers. Seen against
this backdrop, it is really passe to take the moral high ground, IMHO.
Gunawan
Yong-Wah Goh
Seems that you have shot yourself on the foot already......
arc...@spamproof.cyberway.com.sg (ARCHer with a Broken Arrow) writes:
>On 4 Mar 1998 09:29:46 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote:
>[ Snip ]
>>Do you think our world is as black and white as that?
>>1 + 1 = 2 and nothing else?
>[ Snip ]
>It is precisely that the world is not black and white which requires
>us to use a more "objective" definition. The momemnt we talk about
>morality, we will need to define it. One can say that
You admitted that the world is not black and white, then you go on
saying that we therefore need "objective definition"???......
The world is not black and white, do you mean that by using objective
definition we can rid it from being not black and white??? A contradiction
in logic or a confusion?
Now going to morality.....you seems to suggest that morality is not black and
white and therefore we need to make it black and white......
it's very much like saying the earth is wrong and we must make it square!!!
You maight like to expand a little in what you said above.
to make things clear.
>a) it is morally wrong (pardon the split infinitive) for the
> sponsor to dangle a piece of candy in front of someone who
> has no idea what the future is in store
You mean the people who sign the bond have absolutely no idea what
they will be getting in the future??? Absolutely nothing?
>b) it is morally wrong for the recipient to accept the scholarship
> when he/she has no idea of what the future holds. Hmmm.....
> reminds me of stories whereby daughters sell themselves to raise
> funds for their parents' burial :-)
You mean it is perfectly right to rob someone so that one can have the money
to pay for one's parent's medical fees??? That the act of robbing others in this
case is morrally right?
yong wah
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
On 3 Mar 1998 16:21:10 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote and I quote:
>:Because others are bastard, there fore I can be one too, so long as
>:I do not out do them???
That seems to be what EDB & NCB think.
ARCHer with a Broken Arrow
On 4 Mar 1998 13:54:24 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote:
[ Snip ]
>A good responds there Edmund concerning the power of money!
>i have seen mini cases of that, how money can be used as a mean to justify
>an act that is wrong. e.g. illegal parking and didn't mind being fined because
>he has the money to pay the fine, paying a deposit for some work and cancel
>it last minute when the workers have gotten the tools all set to get the job
>done because he can afford to forgo the deposit, Speeding again didn't give
>a damn about it because he can afford the fine.
[ Snip ]
Are you saying that it is morally wrong to break a bond,
or are you saying that it is morally wrong to pay money to
break a bond?
This sort of reminds of the incident where the driver of a
Mercedes parked in a handicapped zone. People were outrage
not because of the parking incident, but because that the
driver was driving a Mercedes.
--
ARCHer
ARCHer with a Broken Arrow
On 4 Mar 1998 16:27:24 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote:
> you seems to miss the points I was getting at again........
>the examples I gave were merely to show that the breaking of bond
>can at times in itself a wrong doing, in fact it is a breach of trust
>plain and simple.
No. Breach of trust is something else. If the sponsor pay me
the money directly with the intention that I take the money to
to pay for my school fees when I actually spent it on a car,
that is breach of trust.
--
ARCHer
Yong-Wah Goh
lima...@pobox.org.sg (Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong) writes:
>On 4 Mar 1998 09:29:46 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote and I quote:
>>:Jin Hong your formula is this.....
>>:If you sign the contract you either
>>:1) serve the bond
>>:2) break it and pay the penalty as set by the bond.
>>:Strictly to that and nothing more..........
>>:Do you think our world is as black and white as that?
>No, but I think scholarship contracts should be as black and white as that.
>After all, that's the way it is to sponsors and scholars alike. Because
>scholarship contracts have now been reduced to commercial transactions and
>nothing else. "Serving the country" sounds good, but I would wager that sponsors
>are a lot more interested in getting "talent" into their organisations than in
>"serving the country".
That I believe is the point of disagreement between us.
Do you think it is possible and practical to have a black and white
contract that covers everything???
>>:Have you serious think of the implication of your view?
>>:What you are saying is that it is perfectly alright morally and what not
>>:to break a promise so long as you can pay the penalty set before you sign it.
>>:Can you see the serious flaw in that statement of yours?
>You obviously do not get it yet. The promise was to serve OR to pay. The 2
>options exist in the alternative. I can *choose*. The *choice* is there. I do
>not promise to serve,
Very interesting interpretation of the govt. bond.
Just a clarification here......when you said I do not promise to serve.....
do you mean when you sign the bond, it does not mean that you want to serve,
that you have agree to serve???
now.....the logic of promise to serve OR to pay.....as options exist
in the alternative. any thoughts about what lies beneath that???
Do you mean to say that the bond was given NOT with the
hope that the person who sign the bond is serious about having a career
in the govt. service? That the bond is an opportunity for you to exercise
the choice of serving or to pay back the amount spent on you???
Jin Hong.....come on......you are smart enough to know that no govt body
will want someone who see the bond as an opportunity to exercise
that choice! They would rather have someone who sign because they seriously
want to serve. Are you arguing the matter for the sake of it???
>and then as an afterthought say that I will pay if I do
>not serve. The options are there on the contract when the scholar chooses to
>sign, and they exist together.
Again.....is that how you see govt. bond as??? A chance for you to exercise
choices???
Ever thought of what the word Bond means?
>>:I see......you view the bond and the committment to serve as a civil servant
>>:as a comercial matter. Correct me if I am wrong, i guess you see our minister
>>:as nothing more than high level exec. of a commercial firm?
>You are wrong. Ministers are *elected* officials.
Before they were elected, how did some of them get into the ministry???
>I do see Permanent Secretaries as being rather successful executives in their
>chosen occupation of civil servants.
And how did they get to that level???
Aren't some of them scholars too???
yong wah
Yong-Wah Goh
lima...@pobox.org.sg (Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong) writes:
>On 4 Mar 1998 09:32:40 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote and I quote:
>>:1) The restriction of examples to three HAS infact been noted in that
>>: comment as RESTRICTED. AS a means of showing a point which I was
>>: bring across. i.e. some Scholars can be taking the scholarship
>>: for the sake of
>>: it rather than truelly and sincerely serious about honoring the bond.
>But these 3 examples are examples from *your* head. Are they real? Are they
>reflective of true reality as it is? Do things happen that way?
I think the following comments of yours as shown below
indicated that you do believe
that such acts are possible.
>And even if your
>views are "true" for these 3 restricted examples, does that mean that your view
>of bond-breakers as immoral scum is true across-the-board?
I think I am at the point of finding a little flaw in your line of logic.
Do you see a difference between calling a person immoral and
calling an act immoral?...... I hope you do see a different, but from the
comment you have made above it does not seem to be the case.
Heck you might even confuse my comments with that of Edmund!
yong wah
>I don't really think so.
>xjh <lima...@pobox.org.sg> <x...@pinky-and-the-brain.com>
Yong-Wah Goh
You mean to say that there is no moral implications to
your signing a govt. bond (e.g. an SAF scholarship to be trained
as a grad and an officer to defend one's country in times of war) which
means you have agreed to work as a civil servant to serve the nation
but break that promise or comittment later over reasons relating to one's
self interest?
Jinhong ....... what does civil service mean to you anyway?
What does breaking a promise or a committment mean to you???
yong wah
lima...@pobox.org.sg (Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong) writes:
>On 4 Mar 1998 09:31:36 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote and I quote:
>>:you seem to hang very tightly on the legal technical aspects of the
>>:issue. I invite you to move out of there and look into the moral and
>>:possibly other implications of your view that so long as they
>>:pay the penalties.....the case is closed and no moral issues applied there
>>:on. (hope my interpretation of your view was correct if not pleacse clarify).
>It pre-supposes that moral aspects exist to the scholarship contract. I have yet
>to see any attempt at an intellectually convincing basis for that
>pre-supposition.
>xjh <lima...@pobox.org.sg> <x...@pinky-and-the-brain.com>
Yong-Wah Goh
Archer......just a simple question in response to your comments.....
does defending one's country, or serving one's country involve
a sense of morality???
yong wah
Yong-Wah Goh
lima...@pobox.org.sg (Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong) writes:
>On 3 Mar 1998 15:20:36 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote and I quote:
>>:Sorry but do you see me as stereotyping all would be scholars?
>>:or are you jumping into conclusion about my comments?
>Yes. You are stereotyping because you cited only 3 exceedingly prejudicial
>examples, and restricted discussion to that. It seems to imply that all scholars
>act that way.
Well......its time to realised that that assumption is WRONG!
note....there is a different between the person and the act.
Get it right Jin Hong.
>>:It sure does, but do you also feel a sense of obligation to "pay back"?
>>:To do something in return?
>Yes. To work in the sponsor organisation. Or if I don't, to pay them, **AS THEY
>WANTED UNDER THE CONTRACT**.
And by paying back the money, that makes you feel really good and that you have
not done anything wrong what so ever? Guess you probably feel nothing is
wrong after you have paid a traffic fine for speeding and endangering others
safty on road right??? I am sure the answer is no.
>>:That I feel is either your beliefs or the beliefs of most Young Singaporean
>>:which I say is a very very sad thing.
>I must say then, that you are riding on a moral high-horse which you claimed to
>not be riding on in another post.
And how does that constitute me riding a moral high horse???
just because i said something you do not agree on???
>>:What is so wrong to see scholarships as a path to material success???
>>:Seems to me that you do not see much of a difference between govt
>>:scholarships and other institutions' scholarship.
>FYI, NCB & EDB are statutory boards. Not quite the same as PSC scholarships.
>Further, it is still unclear whether the scholars would have been attached with
>private-sector firms if they had returned. Such scholarship schemes exist.
Right.....EDB for example has nothing to do with the future of Singapore.....
it is not related to the govt at all??? it is not something that the
survival of Singapore is directly linked???
>But in any case, I would still stand by my comments even if it had been a PSC
>scholarship. There's more ways to serve the country than just serving the
>government.
Indeed there are, but are we discussing the ways of serving the country or
the act of breaking a committement?
>Further, examine the stated aims of the scholarships. You seem to imply a moral
>component into the scholarships. But what sponsors *really* want, is to tie
>"talent" to their organisations. It's the naked economic truth. There's little
>morality involved in their aims. If the aim was truly to mould the cream of
>Singapore's crop into more capable people, so as to serve Singapore better, then
>the bond should simply be a non-negotiable bond, requiring them to stay in
>Singapore for the duration.
>No, the sponsors are hardly as moral and altruistic as they make themselves out
>to be.
>>:The way you put it, I guess I can rephrase it as
>>:"What is so wrong with being a minister (or high ranking Civil Servant)
>>:as a path to material success?"
>No you can't. I don't see the analogy.
You mean none of the scholars end up either a minister or some high ranking
civil servant?
>>:Do you seriously believe that those who took up scholarship have never even
>>:thought of the fact that their career is going to be at least above average
>>:compared to their peers???
>>:Isn't THAT a little naive???
>I think you miss the thrust of my argument. Sure, all scholars know that they
>are worth that bit more. But the real problem comes in, when you start to
>believe that they take scholarships with the intention to break them.
Are you then saying that none of the scholars who take up the bond
ever thought of breaking it if they can???
>>:>If that is true, then it is a truly damning indictment of the kind of
>>:>people our society is producing. And as a hard-boiled cynic of many years, I am
>>:>pleasantly surprised to realise that I don't think that's the way it really is.
>>:Well bless your ten toes then, perhaps you might like to mix around more.
>No, I just wouldn't want to mix around whoever you mix around with.
And therefore decide to hide one's head in the soil like an Ostrich???
Comeon......its time to face the reality of the world around you.
>>:Think deeper Jin Hong.....what we have here is a situation whereby
>>:monetary compensation did not work on them.....They still break the bond!
>Look at the number of bond-breakers, vs. the total number of scholars. I think
>you'll find that only a very small proportion of scholars actually break their
>bonds. So yes, the deterrence of monetary compensation does work.
Have you ever thought that the current case is the beginning???
and that your statement about it is okay so long you pay the money back
would only remove the moral delima of many other scholars who wanted to break
the bond too once they find a way to??? That is a possibility.
You got to be more careful in what you say.
To say that the deterrence of monetay compensation does work is in it self
a contradiction when we already have right in yours and my face three
scholars breaking it! And to let you know I know of at least two thinking
about it now!!! Your statement has made it that easier for them now to
contemplate breaking it.
yong wah
Yong-Wah Goh
auto...@pacific.net.sg (Autolycus) writes:
>This is actually Autolycus responding in lieu of Jooseph, who may not
>appreciate it, but hey, this is a free debate.
>BEGINQUOTE
>*g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote:
>QUOTE1
>>On that line of logic, it still seems that you are
>>telling me not to for example make any moral judgement if I see
>>someone trying to break into another person's house or car because
>>hey.....I don;t know the full reasons of the guy's act
>Actually, Yong-Wah, what I'm saying is that there are legal offences which
>are not moral offences. For example, is eating a moral offence? Of course
>not. But eating in an MRT station is a legal offence. Is it a moral
>offence merely because it is against the law? Of course not - in that
>case, the law would become the arbiter of morality.
Ther are legal offenecs which are not moral offences.....
interesting.....now lets go to the gist of it all, tell me......
is signing a govt. bond agreeing to
take the govt. money to further one's study and then serve the bond as a
civil servant (an important duty) but
in the end take that promise back and breaking it, is that a
morally right act?
>QUOTE2
>>Would you also then agree that
>>because the standard of morality is so varied (if my interpretation of your
>>comments below was right)......then we must as well forget about following
>>the law of our land.....'cos hey whose set of moral standard is the
>>law of our land based on??? Note: I am following you line of logic here.
>Why should the law of the land be based on morality at all? It is normally
>based on social expediency, but social expediency, whatever commality it
>shares with culture and public standards of behaviour, cannot be the root
>of morality. Why? Well, divorce is legal and it is common enough to be an
>important social expedient, but is it moral? That would be a debateable
>issue.
You seems to be saying that morality has no link with one's culture or
society. And that the law has nothing to do with morality.........
Are you sure about that??? Think carefully.
>QUOTE3
>>Granted I do not know the full story, are you saying becuase of that one
>>should not make any judgement??? Not even expressing one's point of view???
>Well, expressing your point of view is fine. But be honest: you are
>actually attempting to convince us of your own point of view as a valid
>corpus of arguments. That, while laudable as an intellectual activity, is
>not a mere expression of thought.
Am I trying to convincing you that my point is a valid point or are you
trying to convince yourself that that was what I have been trying to do???
Again, I think you might have let your preconception determined how
you should interpret my comments. What is the purpose of expressing one's
thought?
>QUOTE4
>>Then if that is so, not only I have to stop discussing this, almost
>>everyone has too and that including you because you have made a
>>moral stand in that passing judgement on something without knowing the full
>>story is wrong......now.....aren't you making a judgement in your
>>act of responding to my comment and the contents of your comments
>>too without knowing the full story???
>I reiterate my stand.
>1) Termination of contract and consequent payment of damages is not the
>same as bond-breaking. Bond-breaking is when you run off without paying.
And ....... I suppose you see the govt. bond as nothing more than just
a contract.....exactly like any contract from let say the bank???
>2) Even if you don't like termination of contract being cast in this
>marginally better light, bear in mind that if a scholar is incapacitated
>or injured in the line of duty, the guarantors still have to pay the bond.
Does that in any way negate or justify the act of terminating a comittment to
the body that you have promised to serve which is the focus of our dicussion?
I do not recall any of the bond breakers incapacitating themselves.
>3) This sort of legal slavery is legal by virtue of contract, but not
>necessarily moral. After all, would you call the right to dictate
>someone's career choices and even public values to be a moral authority?
Again you see the govt. bond as a contract.....which is more than that to us.
Tell me do you see their act as a case involving breaking one's promise
to serve in exchange for the money given to them?
As for your question of the issue of right to dictate one's career choices and
all that....well the bond would have been made clear that that is the case.
If one feel that that is wrong, don't sign it.....but why they still do???
and now having broken it cry foul?
>4) Yes, some people (including myself) have served bonds with wide-open
>eyes. However, would you consider it moral to take advantage of a teenager
>who may not even be old enough to be trusted to vote or enter a disco,
>just because she signs a document?
Inother words you are saying teenagers should not be trusted in
any thing to do with bond or contract signing right?
And by your comments it is wrong to take advantage of an innocent unknowing
teenager (that includes all the tope young scholars)......so we should not have
given them any scholarship at all.....now the question is......does this
still justify the very act of breaking one's promise to serve?
>5) What if I were to pay off my bond, then offer to continue working at a
>lower payscale in the same statutory board? Would that be more moral,
>especially since it involves considerable personal sacrifice and does not
>net any advantage?
That is a sacrifice!
>6) People like Edmund and you think that any contract which is signed
>carries moral imperatives that they should not be broken.
did I say ANY contract? or just govt. bond?
a case of letting your preconception of things determine what
parts of the discussion to be read???
hope i am wrong here.
>Don't forget
>that the orders received at Auschwitz and in the forests of Poland were
>also signed for. Would we have lauded a senior officer who disobeyed those
>orders as a hero? Or would we have labelled him 'oathbreaker'?
Bringing that example as a paralell to the case we are discussing here,
suggest that the bond which these scholar have signed are inherently wrong
just like the order to murder the jews.
Hope you are not suggesting that the bond involved something that is
inherently wrong.
So wrong one just cannot agree......just as it so so wrong to murder the jews.
>7) I'm not saying Singapore is a fascist state, but does it then follow
>that any exigency of service under bond therefore carries moral authority
>and moral superiority?
A rhetorical question?
>8) If so, an officer of the state can do no wrong as long as he follows
orders.
Again bringing in tha nazi example as a parallel comparison with the case
we are discussing here. There seems to be an underlying assumption that
the scholars who broke the bond are justified because they do not want
to do something that is horribly wrong for the stat board.
Bad analogy there.
>9) Which brings us back to the war-crimes trials and the most common
>defence raised: "I followed orders. I was patriotic. I remained faithful.
>I kept my oath. I served at any cost. I will pay any price." Ha. The last >is especially ironic.
Autolycus......are you trying to tell us that the scholars broke the bond
because they realised that once they graduated, they will have to work for
the stat board on things that are morally very wrong??? SO wrong they cannot
possibly agree upon and therefore break the bond or contract as you would call
it??? ....... I think your war crime analogy is waaaaay out of relevance to
thiscase we are discussing.
yong wah
Andrew Tan
Yong-Wah Goh wrote in message ...
>That I believe is the point of disagreement between us.
>Do you think it is possible and practical to have a black and white
>contract that covers everything???
Of course it is possible. And when it isn't, Both parties can argue
their case before the court and a judge will decide.
>Very interesting interpretation of the govt. bond.
>Just a clarification here......when you said I do not promise to
serve.....
>do you mean when you sign the bond, it does not mean that you want to
serve,
>that you have agree to serve???
>now.....the logic of promise to serve OR to pay.....as options exist
<snipped>
Without the benefit of actually reading the words of the contract, I
would say this. I don't think many would take up a scholarship without
any intention to fulfil the bond. But 4 years down the road, many
things can change. It is neither illegal nor is it immoral for the
recipient to exercise a legitimate contractual option by buying his
way out of the bond.
Autolycus
Throughout this thread, you have equated termination of bond with promises
and commitments in general. Can I once more point out that not all
promises or oaths or contracts are morally equal? When I raised points
about Nazi officers (an extreme case), it was just to highlight that
point.
Of course, the civil service is not a Nazi organisation (hey, I'm a civil
servant, are you?), but I would not equate a statutory board's bond to an
oath of allegiance to a nation (surely you can see the difference?).
Neither would I equate such a bond to the social (or antisocial) contract
which bans me from eating a burger in an MRT station.
All I'm saying is:
You seem to say that 'breaking' a bond which would have made you serve a
statutory board is morally bad.
This falls down if any of the following is shown:
1) The bond includes conditions under which it may be fairly terminated,
and those have been met legally and financially.
2) Service to a statutory board includes morally repugnant acts.
3) Morality and legal contracts are not necessarily related. Neither are
patriotism and service to a country.
I have been trying to show 1) and 3). The official secrets act prevents me
from showing 2).
So, what's wrong with my position?
Autolycus
--
. . **********************************************************
/b /| * Autolycus: Lone Wolf * email auto...@pacific.net.sg *
/ 3b-'-':| ==========================================================
.d~ .:::; * *
C "騖,::@::: * MUNDUS VULT DECIPI: The world wishes to be deceived. *
Andrew Tan
Yong-Wah Goh wrote in message ...
>Ther are legal offenecs which are not moral offences.....
>interesting.....now lets go to the gist of it all, tell me......
>is signing a govt. bond agreeing to
>take the govt. money to further one's study and then serve the bond
as a
>civil servant (an important duty) but
> in the end take that promise back and breaking it, is that a
> morally right act?
Yong Wah, I hate to say this but you're really confused, big time. The
agreement is if you accept the scholarship, then you have to serve the
bond that comes with it. Failing which, you'll have to pay back money
plus interest.
In other words:
If A then B else C.
A - Accept scholarship
B - Serve bond
C - Pay back money plus interest
If option C is immoral, EDB shouldn't have included it in the contract
that they OFFERED willingly.
--
Andrew Tan
Autolycus
>interesting.....now lets go to the gist of it all, tell me......
>is signing a govt. bond agreeing to
>take the govt. money to further one's study and then serve the bond as a
>civil servant (an important duty) but
> in the end take that promise back and breaking it, is that a
> morally right act?
Actually, when I signed my bond, I made a promise that I would pay a
stipulated amount if I wanted to leave at any time. If I did that, it
would be legally terminated. Bond breaking would have been if I had left
WITHOUT paying. However, if I had paid my way out as stipulated IN the
contract, I would merely have been fulfilling my legal obligations.
>>AUTOLYCUS:
>>Why should the law of the land be based on morality at all? It is normally
>>based on social expediency, but social expediency, whatever commonality it
>>shares with culture and public standards of behaviour, cannot be the root
>>of morality. Why? Well, divorce is legal and it is common enough to be an
>>important social expedient, but is it moral? That would be a debateable
>>issue.
QUOTE2
>You seems to be saying that morality has no link with one's culture or
>society. And that the law has nothing to do with morality.........
>Are you sure about that??? Think carefully.
I have thought carefully. In the lines you quote, I do not say that
morality has no link; I said that law is not the root of morality, never
that morality might not be a source of law (e.g. laws against adultery in
some parts of the world). I did not say that law has nothing to do with
morality, but that law might not be based (in part or in whole) on
morality.
I have quoted your quote of my words so that you can think about it carefully.
QUOTE3
>Am I trying to convincing you that my point is a valid point or are you
>trying to convince yourself that that was what I have been trying to do???
>Again, I think you might have let your preconception determined how
>you should interpret my comments. What is the purpose of expressing one's
>thought?
Errr... to let others know how you feel about reprehensible people like me
and jinhong and...? *grin* Well, if you are not out to convince an
audience, or any of us, then what's debate for?
QUOTE4
>And ....... I suppose you see the govt. bond as nothing more than just
>a contract.....exactly like any contract from let say the bank???
Actually, yes. The bank will seize your property too, which is worse than
the government. Remember the debate we had before about Government not
being Nation? I might do things to the government I'd never dream of doing
to my country.
QUOTE5
>As for your question of the issue of right to dictate one's career choices and
>all that....well the bond would have been made clear that that is the case.
>If one feel that that is wrong, don't sign it.....but why they still do???
>and now having broken it cry foul?
Well, stupidity or ignorance makes one do things one might regret later.
And nobody cried foul - they just paid and went.
QUOTE6
>Inother words you are saying teenagers should not be trusted in
>any thing to do with bond or contract signing right?
>And by your comments it is wrong to take advantage of an innocent unknowing
>teenager (that includes all the tope young scholars)......so we should not have
>given them any scholarship at all.....now the question is......does this
>still justify the very act of breaking one's promise to serve?
Ah-ha! Perhaps offering scholarships is immoral! I mean, we have labour
laws... and all that... Of course I'm joking here, but hey, don't YOU
think it is wrong to take advantage of an innocent unknowing teenager? Or
do you think it's right?
QUOTE7
>did I say ANY contract? or just govt. bond?
>a case of letting your preconception of things determine what
>parts of the discussion to be read???
>hope i am wrong here.
Well, you have mentioned 'promises' and 'commitments' and stuff like that,
apart from govt bonds, so I'm sure it's not just my preconceptions. In
fact, I'm sure it's YOUR preconceptions about my preconceptions.
QUOTE8
>Hope you are not suggesting that the bond involved something that is
>inherently wrong.
>So wrong one just cannot agree......just as it so so wrong to murder the jews.
No, not inherently wrong. The Nazi stories are just to point out that a
contract made with one's country need not be morally correct.
QUOTE9
>Bad analogy there.
For my stated purpose, a very GOOD analogy, as it clearly shows that not
all goodness flows from the State or its minions (tiny charged particles).
QUOTE10
>Autolycus......are you trying to tell us that the scholars broke the bond
>because they realised that once they graduated, they will have to work for
>the stat board on things that are morally very wrong??? SO wrong they cannot
>possibly agree upon and therefore break the bond or contract as you would call
>it??? ....... I think your war crime analogy is waaaaay out of relevance to
>thiscase we are discussing.
Ah well, see above. But I have transferred my argument to a thread with a
shorter title so as to save a little bit of bandwidth and provide variety.
Of course I'm not suggesting that work for statutory boards is morally
very wrong. How ridiculous. I'm just saying that if you feel you should
leave, leave; but don't break the bond and run away - do your best work,
and when you can do no more, pay up like a man and go, having fulfilled
your obligations.
By the way, are YOU a scholar too?
Wu-Meng Tan
In article <MOD$980304...@sintercom.org>, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah
Goh) wrote:
[snip]
> it's very much like saying the earth is wrong and we must make it square!!!
> You maight like to expand a little in what you said above.
> to make things clear.
[snip]
> You mean it is perfectly right to rob someone so that one can have the money
> to pay for one's parent's medical fees??? That the act of robbing others
in this
> case is morrally right?
Hello Yong-Wah,
My apologies if this seems a bit harsh, but in all your many postings
on this message, not *once* have you brought up a single example that is
not extreme in some way or another. To consider just a few:
1. Your hypothetical example of the SAF scholarship is not fully
applicable, because military service implicitly assumes a higher code of
honour associated with service to the nation, and laying one's life down
if need be to safeguard the country. If you are Singaporean and have
served any amount of National Service, you will understand the concept of
the SAF values and the oath of allegiance, which are all far more than any
mere scholarship contract.
2. Your use of robbery and impoverished parents who are ill is another
inapplicable example. Scholarship "bond-breaking" is not specified under
the Penal Code at all, and using a criminal analogy doesn't work on a
situation where no crime has been committed. Perhaps some bad judgement,
mudslinging and disagreement, but no crime as I can see.
3. In a further post, you then as if "we have to wait till only treason
to occur before we cast the stone?" Once again, you choose a completely
extreme example, and try to apply it to this. I agree that Musashi in his
Book of Five Rings asks us to "pay attention even to trivial things", but
your line of reasoning is ridiculous.
4. You then bring up freedom of speech, mentioning "Joe" who talks
about "all Chinese are scum-bags greedy pigs" and asking if people should
let him off scot-free. I say to you --- Extreme Example Again.
Just in case you have not figured out what I am saying, here it is
again: Yong-Wah, you are shooting yourself in the foot every time you
bring up an extreme example. The person who requires extreme example and
inappropriate analogies to back a case, doesn't have much of a case to
stand on in the first place.
I agree with you that when a scholar breaks his bond the "gentleman's
honour" has been breached, but you must realise that the moment the option
of paying off the bond and quitting is placed in the contract,
"gentleman's honour" would take a back seat. Simply because the
"honourable gentleman" needs no monetary penalty hanging over his head
before he will fulfil the bond.
To put it differently, he who expects a blood oath (which you seem to
be advocating strongly with your examples mentioning treason or SAF
scholarships), should not let money come into the picture. The moment a
monetary price is written into the contract, good old-fashioned honour is
going to start slipping away --- it's human nature.
From the looks of it, one would say that NCB has lost quite a bit as
well, over the Hector Yee episode --- it is arguable that in choosing such
an ambiguous example as Hector (who does have quite a strong sympathy card
to play with the public), NCB may lose as much public standing as Hector
has.
Just my two cents worth.
Wu Meng
Andrew Tan
Yong-Wah Goh wrote in message ...
>And by paying back the money, that makes you feel really good and
that you have
>not done anything wrong what so ever? Guess you probably feel nothing
is
>wrong after you have paid a traffic fine for speeding and endangering
others
>safty on road right??? I am sure the answer is no.
You are really confused. The reason why breaking a bond is not immoral
is because the ACT itself is NOT immoral. So yes, if you get sent to
Changi for x number of years as a punishment for murder, that
punishment does not negate the fact that you've committed an immoral
act. The act of breaking your bond is a different beast altogether. It
is about exercising a contractual option of a commercial deal that
both parties have agreed to (can you at least acknowledge this FACT!)
Suppose you signed a buyer's agreement with me and agreed to forfeit
your deposit if you back out of the deal. You then decided not to
purchase the items and I went ahead and keep your deposit according to
the contractual term. Is it OK for me to also publish you name on the
newspaper in an attempt to punish you for your failure to proceed with
our deal?
--
Andrew Tan
Yong-Wah Goh
Andrew......mmmmmm.............
"Andrew Tan" <a...@pcmart.com.NOSPAM> writes:
>Yong-Wah Goh wrote in message ...
>>That I believe is the point of disagreement between us.
>>Do you think it is possible and practical to have a black and white
>>contract that covers everything???
>Of course it is possible. And when it isn't, Both parties can argue
>their case before the court and a judge will decide.
Of course it is possible??? and what happen when the parties actually
goes to court??? do you still think after that things can be so clearly
defined in black and white???
Wonder why we have a distinction between morality and law???
>>Very interesting interpretation of the govt. bond.
>>Just a clarification here......when you said I do not promise to
>serve.....
>>do you mean when you sign the bond, it does not mean that you want to
>serve,
>>that you have agree to serve???
>>now.....the logic of promise to serve OR to pay.....as options exist
><snipped>
>Without the benefit of actually reading the words of the contract, I
>would say this. I don't think many would take up a scholarship without
>any intention to fulfil the bond. But 4 years down the road, many
>things can change. It is neither illegal nor is it immoral for the
>recipient to exercise a legitimate contractual option by buying his
>way out of the bond.
Good answer......now let me ask you what are the reasons of say....
hector's for breaking the bond?
Do you see the act of breaking a promise right or wrong?
Taking the reasons into consideration what reasons would you say are
good enough to break the bond?
Finally, is the govt. bond (e.g. SAF overseas scholarship)
merely an opportunity to exercise the choice of taking the money to study
or pay it back if you refuse to serve???
If that is the case, why is there a distinction between certain govt bonds
that stated that one need to serve after graduation and those that
does not require you to serve???
yong wah
Edmund Chia
On 4 Mar 1998 09:35:36 +0800, Europa<SP...@get.some> wrote:
>as for accussing people who leave because of an unsatisfactory environment as
>being spoilt brats, you probably just accused almost everyone who has switched
>jobs as a spoilt brat. how accurate is your accusation, i'll let everyone make
>their own call.
When a scholar says he leaves because of an unsatisfactory environment
WITHOUT even spending ONE DAY in that environment, you have to wonder
about his sincerity.
Edmund
For some, the value of a promise lies not in the giving,
but in the keeping.
Yong-Wah Goh
Tell me why then is there the use of punishment in your last sentence???
Doesn't that entail something WRONG has been done???
Here's another analogy......if you ahve signed an SAF bond to be
trained as an officer or a special force member........
Suppose there ,re some tension between singapore and another coountry,
conflict is possible and you graduated and expected to serve, but
you decided not to and break the bond according to the terms and conditions.
Now......it is legally and technically fine if you follow the condition right?
But do you see something else not quite right in that???
Andrew......expand your mind set a little......you are looking at the whole
issue from solely a hard and dry microscopic lens....at the legal and technical
aspects of the bond or Contract.
WHAT ABOUT the whole idea of a govt. bond???
Why is there such thing as a govt. bond and a differentiation betweem
those bond that demand serving and those that don't???
Let it go.....let you mind go from the legal technical side of things
and see the big picture.
yong wah
"Andrew Tan" <a...@pcmart.com.NOSPAM> writes:
>Yong-Wah Goh wrote in message ...
>>And by paying back the money, that makes you feel really good and
>that you have
>>not done anything wrong what so ever? Guess you probably feel nothing
>is
>>wrong after you have paid a traffic fine for speeding and endangering
>others
>>safty on road right??? I am sure the answer is no.
>You are really confused. The reason why breaking a bond is not immoral
Yong-Wah Goh
wm...@cam.ac.uk (Wu-Meng Tan) writes:
>In article <MOD$980304...@sintercom.org>, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah
>Goh) wrote:
>[snip]
>> it's very much like saying the earth is wrong and we must make it square!!!
>> You maight like to expand a little in what you said above.
>> to make things clear.
>[snip]
>> You mean it is perfectly right to rob someone so that one can have the money
>> to pay for one's parent's medical fees??? That the act of robbing others
>in this
>> case is morrally right?
>Hello Yong-Wah,
> My apologies if this seems a bit harsh, but in all your many postings
>on this message, not *once* have you brought up a single example that is
>not extreme in some way or another. To consider just a few:
No worries......its good to look at things from another angle.....
> 1. Your hypothetical example of the SAF scholarship is not fully
>applicable, because military service implicitly assumes a higher code of
>honour associated with service to the nation, and laying one's life down
>if need be to safeguard the country. If you are Singaporean and have
>served any amount of National Service, you will understand the concept of
>the SAF values and the oath of allegiance, which are all far more than any
>mere scholarship contract.
Here is a point where the importance of the scholarship varies......
that defending the nation is inherently more important that perhaps
building the nation's economy???
> 2. Your use of robbery and impoverished parents who are ill is another
>inapplicable example. Scholarship "bond-breaking" is not specified under
>the Penal Code at all, and using a criminal analogy doesn't work on a
>situation where no crime has been committed. Perhaps some bad judgement,
>mudslinging and disagreement, but no crime as I can see.
Good point......indeed no crime was broken,
how about cursing somebody's parents because this person was rude to your
parents......the act of cursing is justified?
> 3. In a further post, you then as if "we have to wait till only treason
>to occur before we cast the stone?" Once again, you choose a completely
>extreme example, and try to apply it to this. I agree that Musashi in his
>Book of Five Rings asks us to "pay attention even to trivial things", but
>your line of reasoning is ridiculous.
Care to elaborate further?
> 4. You then bring up freedom of speech, mentioning "Joe" who talks
>about "all Chinese are scum-bags greedy pigs" and asking if people should
>let him off scot-free. I say to you --- Extreme Example Again.
Extreme example??? Well let me put it mildly then.....
Do you think freedom of speech has nothing to do with responsibility?
> Just in case you have not figured out what I am saying, here it is
>again: Yong-Wah, you are shooting yourself in the foot every time you
>bring up an extreme example. The person who requires extreme example and
>inappropriate analogies to back a case, doesn't have much of a case to
>stand on in the first place.
Hope the above modification satisfy you.......come to think of it....
you haven't given us another constructive points or new insight so far
except commenting on how I used analogy???
Care to point out bad analogies of others too???
Like the use of Nazi German soldiers' actions on jew???
> I agree with you that when a scholar breaks his bond the "gentleman's
>honour" has been breached, but you must realise that the moment the option
>of paying off the bond and quitting is placed in the contract,
>"gentleman's honour" would take a back seat. Simply because the
>"honourable gentleman" needs no monetary penalty hanging over his head
>before he will fulfil the bond.
Now you are talking.....good.....
Right you are saying therefore that......
the Gentleman Honour is something you pull out of the shelve when it is
needed and when you think it is not needed, you throw it back on the shelf again??? In other word, since the bond does not appear to you as one that
demands gentleman's honour, you do not have to hold that hornour???
> To put it differently, he who expects a blood oath (which you seem to
>be advocating strongly with your examples mentioning treason or SAF
>scholarships), should not let money come into the picture. The moment a
>monetary price is written into the contract, good old-fashioned honour is
>going to start slipping away --- it's human nature.
It is human nature to be bastard if the situation calls for one to be.
I think that is just about right in interpreting what you are trying to say
right? Well.....that sure makes it quite easy to be bad doesn't it?
> From the looks of it, one would say that NCB has lost quite a bit as
>well, over the Hector Yee episode --- it is arguable that in choosing such
>an ambiguous example as Hector (who does have quite a strong sympathy card
>to play with the public), NCB may lose as much public standing as Hector
>has.
Probably.......time will tell I guess.....
> Just my two cents worth.
A very good two cents worth....Thanks for the discussion.
>Wu Meng
yong wah
ARCHer with a Broken Arrow
On 4 Mar 1998 22:53:46 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote:
>You admitted that the world is not black and white, then you go on
>saying that we therefore need "objective definition"???......
>The world is not black and white, do you mean that by using objective
>definition we can rid it from being not black and white??? A contradiction
>in logic or a confusion?
There is no contradiction the way I see it.
"Objective definition" refers to a point of reference. Since there
is no absolute point of reference, we need to have a relative point
of reference. For example, in talking about temperature, we can
say it is "warm" or "cool", but it is subjective. If we say say
"30 degrees Celsius", we have an "objective definition" of the
temperature.
>Now going to morality.....you seems to suggest that morality is not black and
>white and therefore we need to make it black and white......
>it's very much like saying the earth is wrong and we must make it square!!!
>You maight like to expand a little in what you said above.
>to make things clear.
No I am not. I am saying that since morality is not black and white,
it would be better to use a more objective measure (such as the law).
The very fact that we can agree on words like square (a four-sided
object where all sides are of equal length, and the angle between
each side is 90 degrees) suggest that we have an objective definition.
>You mean the people who sign the bond have absolutely no idea what
>they will be getting in the future??? Absolutely nothing?
It is plausible. Let me tell you a little story. I had a student
in the UK who was offered a job by a company prior to his graduation.
He was very excited as the offer was quite good, and he agreed
to join the company. Later he found out that the company is
actually in the tobacco business. He decided against joining the
company. You see, his dad died of lung cancer as a result of
smoking.
>You mean it is perfectly right to rob someone so that one can have the money
>to pay for one's parent's medical fees??? That the act of robbing others in this
>case is morrally right?
See what I mean? The moment we start talking about moral issues,
the more complicated things get. In social contracts, moral issues
are aplenty (maybe that's why I am still single, since one of the
greatest social contract is probably marriage :-) :-) ).
--
ARCHer
ARCHer with a Broken Arrow
You are lumping things together.
(a) "Defending one's country" - Ummm.... apparently, you have
not heard of Total Defence. There are more than one way to
defend one's country. And in the case of males, breaking
the bond does not mean that one is no longer liable for
reserve service.
(b) "Serving one's country" - Again, there are many way in which
one can serve one's country. Community work, contributing to
the economy etc. are just as important as being a civil
servant or being a soldier. If I can contribute more to the
economy buy working in the private sector, would it not make
sense that I work in the private sector and get someone else
to work in the civil service?
One can also argue that it is not moral if one stays out of the
country (which is one reason why I gave up a tenured job in the
UK to return to Singapore :-) )
--
ARCHer
Yong-Wah Goh
lima...@pobox.org.sg (Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong) writes:
>On 3 Mar 1998 16:21:10 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote and I quote:
>>:Because others are bastard, there fore I can be one too, so long as
>>:I do not out do them???
>That seems to be what EDB & NCB think.
>xjh <lima...@pobox.org.sg> <x...@pinky-and-the-brain.com>
>The Singapore Bean Asylum: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/5545
And that seems to be what your views will lead others to think too....
I mean hey if I were to take your view that it is alright to break the
bond in a dry and cut logic that the bond is merely one which allow me to
exercise the choice of serving or pay back if I do not want to serve,
Any bastard talented enough and see a chance to use the govt. bond to
further his/her interest will take it. Heck the question of whether I really
want to serve, just take the bond first and go overseas......think later.....
if I want to end the bond and found a way too I'll do it!
Why, well because the I have no obligation to the EDB......they only give
me a choice to take the money and serve them later or return the money if
I do not want to........simple as that. Is it that simple???
That all we have in this bond is money and the question of whether you
pay them back by working for them or pay them back with money???
yong wah
Yong-Wah Goh
Helllooooo.......is the Bond just something that gives you the money to
pay for your school fees??? Do you know in some institutions they actually
have to create new position for the scholars???
Comeon........you are not serious about that simplistic view right?
yong wah
Joseph Jeong
Yong-Wah Goh <g...@psy.uq.oz.au> wrote:
>>Don't forget
>>that the orders received at Auschwitz and in the forests of Poland were
>>also signed for. Would we have lauded a senior officer who disobeyed those
>>orders as a hero? Or would we have labelled him 'oathbreaker'?
> Bringing that example as a paralell to the case we are discussing here,
> suggest that the bond which these scholar have signed are inherently wrong
> just like the order to murder the jews.
> Hope you are not suggesting that the bond involved something that is
> inherently wrong.
> So wrong one just cannot agree......just as it so so wrong to murder the jews.
ahhh..... but aren't you doing the same thing?
obviously to you, the govt bond is inherently a morally right thing.
therefore breaking it makes an immoral act. Is serving the govt a moral
thing? Thus all people in the private sector are immoral? I think you
will find few people agreeing with you there. True, serving one's
country to one's best ability and being patriotic is a good thing.
However this does not always translate to working for the govt.
Hope you see that point.
--
joseph jeong (sang min)
aerospace engineering undergrad
georgia institute of technology
internet: ronin at mail dot com
Yong-Wah Goh
>Actually, when I signed my bond, I made a promise that I would pay a
>stipulated amount if I wanted to leave at any time. If I did that, it
>would be legally terminated. Bond breaking would have been if I had left
>WITHOUT paying. However, if I had paid my way out as stipulated IN the
>contract, I would merely have been fulfilling my legal obligations.
Yes yes yes....a common reply with a view that a govt. bond is nothing more
that just a mere opportunity to exercise this choice of of take the money
and serve OR pay back.....no committment or obligation or sense of
responsibility required.
sigh..........
>>>AUTOLYCUS:
>>>Why should the law of the land be based on morality at all? It is normally
>>>based on social expediency, but social expediency, whatever commonality it
>>>shares with culture and public standards of behaviour, cannot be the root
>>>of morality. Why? Well, divorce is legal and it is common enough to be an
>>>important social expedient, but is it moral? That would be a debateable
>>>issue.
>QUOTE2
>>You seems to be saying that morality has no link with one's culture or
>>society. And that the law has nothing to do with morality.........
>>Are you sure about that??? Think carefully.
>I have thought carefully. In the lines you quote, I do not say that
>morality has no link; I said that law is not the root of morality, never
>that morality might not be a source of law (e.g. laws against adultery in
>some parts of the world). I did not say that law has nothing to do with
>morality, but that law might not be based (in part or in whole) on
>morality.
Yes.....and would you like to run your life based purely on the
principle of law alone and nothing else?
>I have quoted your quote of my words so that you can think about it carefully.
Think again.......
then return to the issue of our discussion
>QUOTE3
>>Am I trying to convincing you that my point is a valid point or are you
>>trying to convince yourself that that was what I have been trying to do???
>>Again, I think you might have let your preconception determined how
>>you should interpret my comments. What is the purpose of expressing one's
>>thought?
>Errr... to let others know how you feel about reprehensible people like me
>and jinhong and...? *grin* Well, if you are not out to convince an
>audience, or any of us, then what's debate for?
This is very very interesting......do you see debate functioning only as an
exercise with the sole aim of convincing people??? i.e. that people in debate
must in the end be convinced by your comments and no other possibility
is allowed??? Is that the only outcome expected from a debate??? If that is
what you believe in.....I'm afriad you might have a very narrow idea ofwhat debate and discussion is about.
I still do not agree or convinced by you, but do I then end this debate or call
this debate a failure or you a poor debater??? No I do not think so......
Tell me, What is the purpose of a debate???
Is convincing other so important in a debate???
Think very hard my friend......
>QUOTE4
>>And ....... I suppose you see the govt. bond as nothing more than just
>>a contract.....exactly like any contract from let say the bank???
>Actually, yes. The bank will seize your property too, which is worse than
>the government. Remember the debate we had before about Government not
>being Nation? I might do things to the government I'd never dream of doing
>to my country.
And are you saying then the bond which the govt. has given you something that
is so morally wrong you can't possibly hornour???
>QUOTE5
>>As for your question of the issue of right to dictate one's career choices
and
>>all that....well the bond would have been made clear that that is the case.
>>If one feel that that is wrong, don't sign it.....but why they still do???
>>and now having broken it cry foul?
>Well, stupidity or ignorance makes one do things one might regret later.
>And nobody cried foul - they just paid and went.
And i suppose all the complaints about EDB naming them was not an act of
crying foul???
>QUOTE6
>>Inother words you are saying teenagers should not be trusted in
>>any thing to do with bond or contract signing right?
>>And by your comments it is wrong to take advantage of an innocent unknowing
>>teenager (that includes all the tope young scholars)......so we should not
have
>>given them any scholarship at all.....now the question is......does this
>>still justify the very act of breaking one's promise to serve?
>Ah-ha! Perhaps offering scholarships is immoral! I mean, we have labour
>laws... and all that... Of course I'm joking here, but hey, don't YOU
>think it is wrong to take advantage of an innocent unknowing teenager? Or
>do you think it's right?
So it seems that you are saying
1) The govt. is taking advantage of innocent unknowing teenagers? or
2) These teenage top graders who took up the scholarship are
innocent and unknowing, or
3) One should give scholarship to any of these teenagers bacause it is
morally wrong???
For one, I do not think the govt. is taking advantage of them
and I believe that these top graders should be intelligent enough to
understand the implication of taking a scholarship.
Unless what is on their mind when they send the bond is nothing more
than just the money and the thrill of going overseas...... a case of
short sightedness???
>QUOTE7
>>did I say ANY contract? or just govt. bond?
>>a case of letting your preconception of things determine what
>>parts of the discussion to be read???
>>hope i am wrong here.
>Well, you have mentioned 'promises' and 'commitments' and stuff like that,
>apart from govt bonds, so I'm sure it's not just my preconceptions. In
>fact, I'm sure it's YOUR preconceptions about my preconceptions.
Geeezzz that is really funny.....all that stayed in your mind was
my words of promises and committments??? and you ignored all this while
my referring to govt. bond???
Need I go any further???
I don't think so.......
>QUOTE8
>>Hope you are not suggesting that the bond involved something that is
>>inherently wrong.
>>So wrong one just cannot agree......just as it so so wrong to murder the
jews.
>No, not inherently wrong. The Nazi stories are just to point out that a
>contract made with one's country need not be morally correct.
Yes.......and are you sugesting that the bond made by the EDB is not morally
correct???
>QUOTE9
>>Bad analogy there.
>For my stated purpose, a very GOOD analogy, as it clearly shows that not
>all goodness flows from the State or its minions (tiny charged particles).
Read the above question again and tell me again.....do you still want
to insist that it was a good analogy?
>QUOTE10
>>Autolycus......are you trying to tell us that the scholars broke the bond
>>because they realised that once they graduated, they will have to work for
>>the stat board on things that are morally very wrong??? SO wrong they cannot
>>possibly agree upon and therefore break the bond or contract as you would
call
>>it??? ....... I think your war crime analogy is waaaaay out of relevance to
>>thiscase we are discussing.
>Ah well, see above. But I have transferred my argument to a thread with a
>shorter title so as to save a little bit of bandwidth and provide variety.
Read my comment above......
Will check that out Thanks....
>Of course I'm not suggesting that work for statutory boards is morally
>very wrong. How ridiculous. I'm just saying that if you feel you should
>leave, leave; but don't break the bond and run away - do your best work,
>and when you can do no more, pay up like a man and go, having fulfilled
>your obligations.
Good point, now......do you think people like HECTOR has done his best work
until he cannot work anymore???
hey did he work for the stat board in the first place???
>By the way, are YOU a scholar too?
Fortunately I am not......
yong wah
Edmund Chia
On 4 Mar 1998 06:56:23 +0800, ta...@red.seas.upenn.edu (Nasty Ace)
wrote:
>But for you to go as far as to say that it is morally *wrong* for the
>scholars to break their bonds, I must protest.
Let me qualify my statement. I make no judgement on the 3 scholars
named because I have no real idea of why they decided to break their
bond.
I believe that we should all keep our word when we give it. That
includes making an effort to honor our commitment to a bond.
Having said that, we may not always be able to keep our word, in spite
of our best efforts. A scholar might become seriously ill, or have to
return home to take care of his seriously ill mother, or something
else might intervene to make keeping one's word 'impossible'.
Thus, there are exceptions and extenuating circumstances that can and
that do waive a person's 'moral' obligation to honor his commitments.
However, IMHO, having the money to pay liquidated damages does NOT
excuse one from making an effort to honor one's commitment.
Yong-Wah Goh
Andrew i think you lack serious insight into matters in general......
Like what I have asked before.....
do you seriously see a govt. bond such as an SAF overseas scholarship as
something that merely gives you an opportunity to exercise the choice of
serve the bond OR pay back and that is all???
are you lying to yourself so that you can conveinently ignore the underlying
responsibility of accapting a govt. bond, or are you willingly play
with the oversights of the govt. by sticking dumbly and strictly to the
clause of the bond without thinking any deeper on the implications of your
act of accepting the bond and what the govt. bond is really about???
If all bonds are mere opportunity for one to choose between taking it
and then serve the bond or pay back without serving.....why is there a
distinction between some scholarships which I was told that do not
require people to serve after graduation and those that do???
Obviously there is a difference isn't there?
yong wah
"Andrew Tan" <a...@pcmart.com.NOSPAM> writes:
>Yong-Wah Goh wrote in message ...
>>Ther are legal offenecs which are not moral offences.....
>>interesting.....now lets go to the gist of it all, tell me......
>>is signing a govt. bond agreeing to
>>take the govt. money to further one's study and then serve the bond
>as a
>>civil servant (an important duty) but
>> in the end take that promise back and breaking it, is that a
>> morally right act?
>Yong Wah, I hate to say this but you're really confused, big time. The
Joseph Jeong
Yong-Wah Goh <g...@psy.uq.oz.au> wrote:
> you seems to miss the points I was getting at again........
> the examples I gave were merely to show that the breaking of bond
> can at times in itself a wrong doing, in fact it is a breach of trust
> plain and simple.
no you miss my point.
i never said it is morally right to break a bond, and i concede that
there are circumstances in which breaking a bond can be due to immoral
reasons. however my stance is it is not for you or me to make that call.
as for a breach of trust, i don't see it. the agreement is this, work
for the company for a certain number of years and thus paying off the
bond or pay it off with a predetermined monetary sum. you do know that
a breach of trust can lead to a court case, which is obviously not
going to happen here.
> we should not use the
> cases we have now to say that it is okay for them because they have
> paid the penalty and stop just there.......without making it clear to others
> that the act of breaking one's bond is inherently a wrong act.
inherently wrong? it is inherently wrong to kill another person, i don't
think breaking a bond belongs in the same category. it is your perogative
to make your own moral judgements, just don't expect all of us to accept it.
Yong-Wah Goh
auto...@pacific.net.sg (Autolycus) writes:
>BEGINQUOTE
>*g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote:
>>What does breaking a promise or a committment mean to you???
>ENDQUOTE
>Throughout this thread, you have equated termination of bond with promises
>and commitments in general.
and i assume that this is not the case for you in terms of govt. bond???
> Can I once more point out that not all
>promises or oaths or contracts are morally equal? When I raised points
>about Nazi officers (an extreme case), it was just to highlight that
>point.
By what standard should we then judge which is morally relevant and which
isn't?
>Of course, the civil service is not a Nazi organisation (hey, I'm a civil
>servant, are you?),
Yes i was.
> but I would not equate a statutory board's bond to an
>oath of allegiance to a nation (surely you can see the difference?).
Yes......and no......what is the function of a stat board???
>Neither would I equate such a bond to the social (or antisocial) contract
>which bans me from eating a burger in an MRT station.
>All I'm saying is:
>You seem to say that 'breaking' a bond which would have made you serve a
>statutory board is morally bad.
Close.....with a modeification on stat board.......
when you sign a bond to be part of a team important to the growth or
survival of a nation......that is a very big and important responsibility.
>This falls down if any of the following is shown:
>1) The bond includes conditions under which it may be fairly terminated,
>and those have been met legally and financially.
That becomes weak if you consider the existence of other govt. bonds
that do not require you to serve. Now we have two type of govt. bond....
both with the clause for termination.....but why two type???
I mean if the bond is designed with the main focus on giving one a
choice of either serve or pay back, wouldn't it be easier to just
design a bond that says.....you are free to choose whether to serve
or not, but note that if you choose not too, you have to give us
ack our money with interest. Now the piont it do youinterpret the
bond as such??? and Does the institution interpret the bond as such?
>2) Service to a statutory board includes morally repugnant acts.
Agree on that which is why I asked you if you see the service for
a stat board morally wrong like that of Nazi's policy?
>3) Morality and legal contracts are not necessarily related. Neither are
>patriotism and service to a country.
But obviously, the institutions think so in this case right?
i.e. morality and legal contract are related
If so.....wouldn't the scholar be hesitent in signing because
it will morally bind them. But they did......why??? I wonder???
Essentially I agree with the statement above......
the point is that you need to look at the context of the case,
we are talking about signing a bond and not just a contract with the govt.
>I have been trying to show 1) and 3). The official secrets act prevents me
>from showing 2).
>So, what's wrong with my position?
Have a read above.....
Yong-Wah Goh
Archer,
What you have said in your previour post only confirmed one thing.....
there is no absolute but only relative absolute and absolute as defined
by the majority perhaps.
That is why we have such an interesting discussion here.....not so much as
to convince you that I am right or you are wrong, but to show that
one thing can be
viewed so differently and from different angle.
I just like to take a step back now and offer a view that I would like to
cross check with you all. It seems that this discussion stems from amoung other
things (like battle of ego perhpas???) differences in interpreting the meaning
and intention of the stat board's bond or govt. bond.
I have two interpretations that I believe are the predominant ones throughout
this
debate.....
1) The bond is offered with an intention to train someone and an expectation
that this person shall serve the bond and work for the insititution that
offers the bond. That is the main trust or reason for the bond's existence
....that's why it is called a BOND
to train someone and he/she inturn work for the sponsor.
However it is possible that there will be some shcolars
who will not hornour the bond (a wrong act in the eyes of the institution)
which
means therefore a penalty should be included to deter them from such wrong
doing. Note: A penalty entails something wrong has occured.
2) The bond is offered with an intention of offerring someone the opportunity
to be the best he/she can be. It doesn't matter if this person serve
the institution that offered the bond or not. If they do, that is good,
if not all they need to is to pay back the amount spent on them. Here,
the payback is not so much of a penalty by a form of agreement or exchange
between the sponsor and the scholar. Here the bond exist for the sake of
giving someone a chance to go for the sky.
Seems that the insitution is holding view 1 and some of the people here
believe in 2.
I can see the benefit of holding view 2 because it sure frees oneself from
tons of moral obligation and responsibility you have to carry along with the
bond.
Question is......do you think EDB or NCB are holding view 2 or view 1???
Do you think that the scholars who sign the contract hold view 2 or view 1???
Are there any other possible interpretations of the meaning of a govt. bond?
yong wah
Yong-Wah Goh
arc...@spamproof.cyberway.com.sg (ARCHer with a Broken Arrow) writes:
>On 5 Mar 1998 00:11:18 +0800, g...@psy.uq.oz.au (Yong-Wah Goh) wrote:
>>Archer......just a simple question in response to your comments.....
>>does defending one's country, or serving one's country involve
>>a sense of morality???
>You are lumping things together.
>(a) "Defending one's country" - Ummm.... apparently, you have
> not heard of Total Defence. There are more than one way to
> defend one's country. And in the case of males, breaking
> the bond does not mean that one is no longer liable for
> reserve service.
Good answer.....now am I correct that serving one's nation does not
necessarily have to be in relation to military defense, and that the
idea of total defense will also include contribution in relation to other
aspect such as.....economic development or deplomacy and others???
Hence would you view the work down for example in EDB in many way is
also contributing to the strengthening of our nation and in some way
related to total defence?
>(b) "Serving one's country" - Again, there are many way in which
> one can serve one's country. Community work, contributing to
> the economy etc. are just as important as being a civil
> servant or being a soldier. If I can contribute more to the
> economy buy working in the private sector, would it not make
> sense that I work in the private sector and get someone else
> to work in the civil service?
That is when you can show us that you can infact serve more by
being in private sector.........has any of the scholar actually showed
that they can serve more than serving the bond???
Hector is going for further research study.....I hope I got the infor right
here......but does that automatically means he can contribute more then
serving the bond?
>One can also argue that it is not moral if one stays out of the
>country (which is one reason why I gave up a tenured job in the
>UK to return to Singapore :-) )
Care to elaborate on that?
yong wah
>--
>ARCHer