TR EMERITUS

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.

*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.