January 7, 2010
By Low Wei
Xiang
Singaporeans might have plenty to cheer with the government’s
announcement of price hikes and changes in the primary school
balloting system to enhance the privileges of citizens, but they
could be losing sight of the big picture.
Last week, the government announced that PRs and foreigners will
pay higher fees to study in government primary and secondary
schools. Singapore citizens also get twice the number of chances
when balloting for places in popular primary schools. These
changes are in a bid to draw a clearer distinction between citizens
and non-citizens.
However the government might have lost focus on the more
important issues.
Changes across primary and secondary school levels are likely to
be well-received by citizens, but there would have been little
difference with or without these changes.
Citizens and foreigners alike would still get their respective
places in government primary and secondary schools. Perhaps
the only difference would be that citizens now have an edge in
popular primary schools – but an education in a primary school that
is more or less popular would not result in substantial
differences.
In addition, the effects of these changes are minimal, since
only 4% of the primary and secondary school students are
foreigners.
In contrast, foreigners account for 8% of polytechnic and ITE
students and 20% of university students.1
While citizens should be heartened by the changes, we should
bear in mind the bigger picture. If the government wants to enhance
the privileges of citizens, there are bigger, more impactful issues
in education of the higher levels to address.
Issue 1: School Fees Between Citizens and Non-Citizens in Tertiary
Institutes
School fees for foreign students in Singapore’s government
tertiary institutes are comparatively low since they receive the
same amount of government subsidies extended to citizens and PRs,
but how fair is this measure?
Scenario: If a student was newly enrolled into the following
courses for Academic Year 09/10, the tuition fees payable annually
for the 2nd year onwards would be as bolded (fees for the 1st year
are lower for some schools) –
Course
Citizenship Status
Government Subsidies
or Tuition Grants ($)2
Fees Payable
by
Student ($)
NUS / NTU Business
Citizen
19,000
7,000
PR
7,700
Foreigner
10,500
NUS Medicine /
Dentistry
Citizen
88,200
18,960
PR
20,860
Foreigner
28,440
SMU Business
Citizen
21,900
9,600
PR
10,560
Foreigner
14,400
Polytechnics
Citizen
13,600
2,100
PR
2,310
Foreigner
3,150
The government has set the fees payable at 10% more for PRs and
50% for foreigners, however it is barely substantial in absolute
terms especially when compared to the government subsidy. For
example, to study a full year in NUS or NTU Business, a foreigner
pays only $3,500 more than a Singapore citizen.
The question is this – why is the same subsidy extended to PRs
or even foreigners?
Compared to subsidies awarded by other countries, if they even
exist, Singapore arguably extends the highest subsidies to foreign
students. Many countries and education hubs around the world bank
considerably on foreign students to generate money.
For example, citizens of European Union countries pay £3,290 per
year to study at Cambridge University, while foreigners pay £10,752
to £26,028 depending on the course.3
Closer to home at the University of Hong Kong, one of the top
Asian universities consistently ranked higher than Singapore’s,
citizens pay a composition fee of HK$42,000 while foreigners pay
HK$100,000.4
Singapore intends to be an education hub, but does it intend to
make money out of this venture too? The year-by-year increase
of foreign students paying full tuition fees to study in local
private institutions has generated substantial revenue, but has it
all been channeled to subsidizing foreigners in government tertiary
institutions instead?
One of the hallmarks of Singapore’s education system is that
nobody deserving is denied because he or she cannot afford
it. Ironically, this principle seems to apply to even
foreigners. The government has to justify the reason for such high
subsidies extended to foreign students, and where the money comes
from.
Issue 2: Scholarships Between Citizens and Non-Citizens
in Universities
Recent statistics are unavailable, but from 2001 to 2005, there
were twice as many foreign as local undergraduates on scholarships
in NUS and NTU. Most, if not all, of these scholarships are
awarded by Singapore and its various agencies.5
The government needs to justify their preference in awarding
scholarships to foreigners over citizens.
Coupled with the heavy subsidies, this certainly makes Singapore
an attractive destination for many foreign undergraduates.
The question is have we achieved our aim of attracting the top
brains from around the world?
The origins of most foreign students in Singapore are restricted
to countries from ASEAN, China, and India. It seems as if
Singapore has not succeeded in attracting talents from the
international stage, including those from the US and UK.
If even the high number of scholarships and subsidies do not
attract bright students from around the world, perhaps it is time
to revise our policies on making Singapore a top educational
destination.
More importantly, this comes when the government is seeking to
draw clearer distinctions between citizens, PRs and
foreigners. It is thus also time to consider if the subsidies
and scholarships extended to foreigners are unfair to citizens and
their tax money, especially since they have done little in
attracting the intended crowd to our shores in the first place.
Issue 3: Bond Periods of Non-Citizens
PRs and foreigners who accept the subsidies must serve a 3-year
cumulative “bond period” in the form of employment in a
Singapore-based company upon graduation.
The exceptions are those in NUS Medicine and Dentistry, the most
expensive courses. Citizens and non-citizens alike who
graduate from these courses have to serve a bond period with the
Ministry of Health
What raises eyebrows, however, is that their bond period lasts
for the same number of years.
The need for an obligatory bond is understandable due to the
high subsidy, but why is the length for PRs and foreigners the same
as citizens? If the reason is that tuition grants awarded are
of the same amounts, this goes back to the initial question – why
do they receive the same government subsidy as citizens?
From the table above, students in these two faculties receive
the same government subsidy of $88,200.
In other words, for a year in these highly competitive courses
worth over $100,000 (adding government subsidy and payable fees), a
foreigner has to pay merely $9,480 more than a Singapore
citizen.
For a foreigner, does this mean that $9,480 is the price tag of
remaining a foreigner instead of a PR or citizen, since the subsidy
and obligatory bond period are the same?
Unofficial sources also mention that the 3-year bond period for
foreigners can be dissolved without monetary penalty if they are
unable to find a job. These foreigners are thereafter barred
from living, working or studying in Singapore, although it would
barely affect those who use Singapore as a stepping stone to
foreign lucrative markets.6
The above is confirmed by the MOE Tuition Grant agreement.
Clause 2(1)(c) states that the student “shall (unless unable to
obtain any employment within one (1) year after completion of the
Course or re-employment within (1) year after his/her resignation
or dismissal from or cessation of his/her employment) work in
Singapore for a period or periods totaling in the aggregate three
(3) years”.1
If these foreigners receive the same subsidies and are then
allowed to go “scot-free”, are we being fair to the citizens and
their money? What makes a citizen different from a non-citizen
then?
These are questions that the government has to answer so that
being a citizen still has its privileges.
Issue 4: Places in University Between Citizens and
Non-Citizens
The government also has some way in dealing with ground
sentiments that there are too many foreigners in our local
universities, who could be potentially taking up places of equally
deserving locals.
In 1998, then Minister for Education Mr Teo Chee Hean assured
that places taken up by foreign students in local universities are
capped at 20 percent7, although it seems to have been overshot in
2007 when foreign students got 4,218, or 22.2 percent, out of the
18,999 places in the 3 local universities.8
It is pertinent then to note that in the top 10 universities
ranked by Times Higher Education, competition for places by foreign
students are arguably stiffer compared to Singapore’s. However
these universities, especially those from the US, generally have a
lower proportion of foreign entrants.
This can be seen in the table below.
Course
Country
Ranking by Times Higher
Education
Proportion of Foreign
Undergraduates
From various
sources*
From Times Higher Education
website
Harvard University
US
1
8.9%
8.3%
University of Cambridge
UK
2
15%
14.8%
Yale University
US
3
9%
18.4%
University College London (UCL)
UK
4
26.7%
26.9%
Imperial College London
UK
5
34.4%
34.7%
University of Oxford
UK
5
14%
12.8%
University of Chicago
US
7
13%
7.8%
Princeton University
US
8
10%
9.6%
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT)
US
9
9%
9.1%
California Institute of Technology
(Caltech)
US
10
11%
9.4%
National University of Singapore
(NUS)
SG
30
Unavailable
26.7%
Nanyang Technological University
(NTU)
SG
73
19%
25.7%
Singapore Management University (SMU)
SG
-
17%
23.0%
*Sources are listed at the end of the article. Note that some
figures provided by sources could be rounded or from recent years
due to the unavailability of figures for this year.
Statistics only account for undergraduates, i.e. postgraduates are
not included.
From the above table:
A comparison with the Times Higher Education (THE) website
against other sources reveals different figures for various
reasons. While differences for most schools involve less than
2 percentage points, a few (in red font) paint rather different
pictures of the proportion of foreign undergraduates in the
respective universities.
Unfortunately, these universities include that of our local
ones, possibly because PRs are included as “foreign nationals” by
THE. Perhaps the government would like to clarify with THE on
how the figures were obtained.
Regardless of the accuracy of the figures, the crux is this.
The mix of foreign presence brings immeasurable benefits, but
there are some who would be interested in the government’s
justification for the cap of 20 percent compared to say, 15
percent, which seems to be the trend with at least 7 of the top 10
universities. This is also despite the higher competition for
places by foreigners in these universities.
While 20 percent might also be an acceptable figure to many, the
government certainly needs to provide more assurance when they say
citizens are given priority over foreigners in local
universities. Barring discretionary admission, this would
mean that the lowest admission grades of foreign students,
including non-scholarship holders, are higher than that of
citizens.
Amidst complaints that admission criteria are inconsistent and
unclear, the 3 local universities have put up representative grade
profiles on their websites showing the grades attained by students
admitted the previous year into the respective courses.
This should be taken one step further – perhaps there should be
a further differentiation between the grades of admitted citizens
and foreigners to prove that citizens indeed given priority,
especially in competitive faculties like engineering with a high
number of foreigners.
With rising cries that foreigners are taking the places of
locals, it is time for transparency by the government and assurance
that this is not the case and that the interests of citizens are
not disregarded.
Conclusion
While the changes for primary and secondary schools do go some
way in placating citizens, the real and important issues of
education have not been answered. If the government aims to
draw a clearer distinction between citizens, PRs and foreigners, it
should look into the above issues. Only then will
Singaporeans be assured that our interests as citizens are
safeguarded and still matter to the government.
Sources
1http://www.filmo.com/singapore.htm
2http://sam11.moe.gov.sg/tass/menu/index.htm
3http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/international/finance.html
4http://www.hku.hk/acad/ugp/finance_fee.html
5http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/parliamentary-replies/2006/pq20060213.htm#Scholarship
6http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?t=267341&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
7http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/1998/010898.htm
8http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20070720-19051.html
*Sources for
table
Harvard University
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/03/harvard_admissi.html
University of Cambridge
http://www.cam.ac.uk/international/life.html
Yale University
http://www.yale.edu/admit/international/index.html
University College London (UCL), Imperial College London
http://www.hesa.ac.uk/dox/dataTables/studentsAndQualifiers/download/institution0607.xls
University of Oxford
http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/international_students/index.html
http://www.cherwell.org/content/8122
University of Chicago
https://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/admissions/classprofile.shtml
Princeton University
http://registrar.princeton.edu/university_enrollment_sta/common_cds2009.pdf
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT)
http://www.universityparent.com/mit/2009/08/20/mit-international-students-and-scholars
California Institute of Technology
(Caltech)
http://www.admissions.caltech.edu/about/stats
Nanyang Technological University
(NTU)
http://www.ntu.edu.sg/AboutNTU/NTUataglance/Pages/UndergraduateStudentenrolment.aspx
Singapore Management University (SMU)
http://www.smu.edu.sg/about_smu/pdf/Statistical_Highlights.pdf
Other sources
https://share.nus.edu.sg/registrar/info/ug/UGTuitionCurrent.pdf
http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/oad2/website_files/finaid/tutionFees.pdf
http://www.smu.edu.sg/admissions/fees/tuition/index.asp
http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/education/iej/articles/v3n2/v3n2.pdf
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/parliamentary-replies/2005/pq19042005.htm
http://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20070720-19051.html
http://www.singaporeangle.com/2006/09/impact-of-international-students-in.html
http://frankcomment.blogspot.com/2007/07/foreign-undergrads-is-20-target-or-cap.html
About the
Author:
Low Wei Xiang, a self-dubbed
writer with journalistic aspirations, has found himself
graduated from Hwachong Institution, released from the
army, and is currently thrown back onto the streets. He
is also a self-confessed owl and sleeping is his secret
passion, although it clashes with his other interests. Aged
20, he writes short stories on top of serious stuff, and will
be entering NTU’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communications and
Information in 2010.
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/01/07/dont-forget-about-us-says-university-students/
