I'm not sure whether they still publish their names in the ST,
assuming they pay their gratuity or get a benefactor to foot the
balance of their bond.
Even so, do you really think that will deter them if they were
presented with a momentous opportunity, one that is difficult to
turn down? ST is quick to publish articles and sing acolytes of
select scholars who were offered oppotunities to work at barclays
and merill lynch, yet graciously and honourably 'turned down' the
offer to complete their govt bond. But they do not mention the
others who chose the alternative.
It should be said that if the intention is honest and true, then
that is all that matters. Why should it matter if the govt 'smears'
your name because you joined an elite class of scholars,
hand-picked from hundreds and thousands, only to 'disgrace' the
hand that feeds you? It should worry the govt more, especially the
selection system, if bond-breakers are on the rise. It means the
countless interviews and technical assessments are next to useless
when it comes to gauging whether a candidate will honour his/her
bond?
Why are there so many doctors deserting the govt sector, despite
being painstakingly selected from thousands of hopefuls? Doesn't it
prove that the selection criteria is moot when attempting to assess
the character of a candidate?
In any case, this is an ongoing trend and will become worst before
it gets better.
