Over this last weekend, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (the government body which disburses government scholarships) Eddie Teo delivered a speech "Defending Scholarships but not all Scholars" in London [link updated, 15 August 2016].
You may come to your own conclusions.
Edited to add (4 Nov, around 2 a.m.): Apropos, the Economist has a report on "A tough search for talent", with respect to the civil service or public service in various large Western countries (via Alvin on Facebook).
Further edited to add (4 Nov, around 11 a.m.): Today there's a report in the Singapore newspaper Today on the speech: "Young scholars with an attitude" (via Phillip on Facebook).
Labels: Singapore stories, Words words words
11 Comments:
Oh my gosh. I can't believe the number of snide remarks he made. That is so unbecoming.
...
Reading his speech makes me so angry.
Content aside (grrr), what's with civil servants and their penchance for enumerating paragraphs!?!?!??!
Gosh! He called you a misfit!
They really have zero concept of nuance, huh.
I love how he never states why he disagrees with you and launches an ad hominem attack instead.
It is not clear what he is defending. Civil service, scholarships for civil service, or
this specific organization he runs.
He confuses his mandate with his organizational structure.
Just in case he does not get it, let me put it this way: Some Google engineers could run an alternative PSC and run rings around his organization. And it would still award scholarships to an elite group. Yes, I believe that is justified. But it would not be PSC. This alternative PSC would equal his PSC and excel in allocating talent.
I decry the accusing and paternalistic tone of the article. The trivial and juvenile management idea of reward and punishment is both crude and autocratic. The idea that criticizing policy does not serving the better interest of the public is an idea that is philosophically incorrect. Once again, it must be frustrating for those who actually care about Singapore, who would like it to be better, to have to read this kind of gobbledegook.
Aside from that, I am troubled by something else. If the choice seems Faustian, would most students still trade professional freedom for a prestigious and/or rewarding education? And if so, can the blame be so easily laid on one organization? I find it troubling that Singapore seems rife with a kind of self-policing whose basis lies in a structure of values that have never been challenged; that the very notion of challenging these values is both disapproved and isolating.
I seem to be in the minority.
http://gssq.blogspot.com/2009/11/food-is-important-part-of-balanced-diet.html
Oh, if we're doing linkdumps, I feel obliged to post my own link.
http://acfsk.com/2009/11/04/aagets/
SMARMY! Grrrrrr...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]