A*Star scientist starts arts grant in protest against six-year bond

A*Star scientist took up two scholarships
She could have rejected second one if she wasn't keen on research: Agency
By Sandra Davie Senior Education Correspondent, The Straits Times, 29 Nov 2014

THE scientist and dancer who is protesting against her six-year scholarship bond, because she is in a job "not aligned with her interests", received funding for two university stints - and could have turned down the second if she was not keen on research.

The Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) has revealed that Dr Eng Kai Er spent three years studying as an undergraduate at Britain's prestigious Cambridge University before returning here to do a one-year research stint at A*Star in 2006.

At the end of that, she took up a second scholarship to study for a PhD in infection biology at Swedish medical university Karolinska Institute. She completed this at the end of 2012 and now works in an A*Star research institute studying infectious diseases.

Post by The Straits Times.

However, last week, Dr Eng, 30, criticised the bond in a blog and set up a "No Star Arts Grant" in protest - pledging to give $1,000 a month from her salary to support arts projects for a year.

"Eng Kai Er is not interested in science at all, but has to serve her bond or pay, as of 30 September 2014, around $741,657.37 in order to quit her job," she wrote.

"Since she understands the pain of having a paid job that is not aligned with her interests, she wishes to change the world by having more instances of paid jobs aligned with people's interest."

It is believed she tried to transfer her bond to the National Arts Council but was unsuccessful.

A*Star told The Straits Times that its returning PhD scholars are expected to serve at least two years at one of its research institutes.

After the stint, those who do not want to remain in research are allowed into related fields such as industry development or research administration. Some also go into academia.

Dr Eng has served two years of her bond and has four more to go.

A*Star said in a statement: "On a case-by-case basis, we will consider deployment to other organisations, should such deployment contribute to strengthening the overall research, innovation and enterprise ecosystem in Singapore."

A*Star added that it was "highly supportive" of employees who contribute to the arts and other social causes and many of its staff do so in a private capacity.

But it reiterated that government scholarship holders have to be held accountable to the public for the amount invested in them.

"Scholarships also carry a moral responsibility and recipients are expected to fulfil their commitment to serve Singapore in fields related to their studies."

Asked if she had asked for a transfer, A*Star would say only that it was aware Dr Eng "has issues with serving out her bond commitments". It added it was "deeply concerned" about her actions and would "decide on appropriate steps to be taken".

The former Hwa Chong Junior College student first hit the news in 2009 when she was fined $2,000 for walking naked through Holland Village with Swedish exchange student Jan Philip.

She was given a warning but allowed to keep her scholarship.

Dr Eng's arts grant has provoked mixed reactions.

Ms Estella Young wrote to The Straits Times Forum to say she showed a "shocking lack of appreciation for the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on her".

However, some feel the Government should be flexible and let scholarship holders serve their bonds in their areas of interest.

Some in the arts community have welcomed Dr Eng's grants. She is part of a programme to groom directors at The Substation Theatre and recently staged a play titled Fish.

A*Star scientist's protest over bond sparks outcry
Many say after accepting scholarship, she should keep her end of bargain
By Amelia Teng, The Straits Times, 3 Dec 2014

THE scientist and dancer who is protesting against her six-year scholarship bond has been widely criticised for her actions.

Dr Eng Kai Er, 30, who is serving her bond to the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) by studying infectious diseases at one of its research institutes, had claimed that her job was "not aligned with her interests". As a mark of protest, she set up a "grant" to give $1,000 a month from her salary to support arts projects for a year.

She has started giving away the grant amid widespread disapproval since The Straits Times reported on her protest last week.

Dr Eng has served two years of her six-year bond to A*Star for two scholarships - one for undergraduate studies at Britain's Cambridge University and the other for a PhD in infection biology at Swedish medical university Karolinska Institute.

It is believed she has tried, but failed, to transfer her bond to the National Arts Council (NAC).

This newspaper received several letters and about 1,000 comments, likes and shares on its Facebook page about the story.

Most people felt that Dr Eng's actions smacked of a sense of entitlement and ingratitude.

Dr Lee Hock Seng wrote: "Scholarship holders are very fortunate people who (are) given financial support by their fellow citizens to further their studies, in view of their desire, commitment and potential capability to serve as leaders in specific fields.

"Not keeping their end of the bargain after completing their studies is not merely a breakdown of a transaction between the scholarship holder and the Government, but also a grave affront to the trust, honour and respect we reserve for recipients who serve our society humbly and dutifully."

Mr George Er posted: "Why deprive others who deserve the scholarship more and who are willing to serve? Spending so many years graduating and then sweeping it off as 'not my interest'?"

Some, like Mr Loh Wai Poon, wondered why Dr Eng accepted a second scholarship in science if she was not interested in the field.

He wrote: "When she took the first scholarship, she might (have been) unsure of what she wanted, but to take up a second scholarship in science, which now she says she hates, is just incredible."

Many people said she ought to serve the full bond at A*Star before changing her profession. A 27-year-old scholarship holder,who is serving a four-year bond at a ministry, said: "It is good that she is putting aside her salary to support what she is passionate about. But she still has a responsibility to commit to the bond."

A 30-year-old former scholarship holder, who left a statutory board in 2010 after serving 11/2 years of his six-year bond and paying for the rest of it, said: "She signed a legal binding contract.

"There is really no basis for her to transfer to NAC when it is so unrelated. I empathise with her, but she has to live up to the agreement. You have to be a responsible adult.

"There is no point condemning her. Many young people sign bonds blindly because they want to go overseas and study."

Dr Eng, meanwhile, has given her first No Star Arts Grant to Mr Andrew Chan, who is openly gay, to hold a wedding by this month.

She wrote that the grant supports Mr Chan "in his belief that everyone has the right to experience a wedding".

The second grant has gone to artist Loo Zihan for his production to reinterpret a 1999 stage monologue by the late Paddy Chew, the first person here to go public about having the human immunodeficiency virus.

Attempts to reach Dr Eng and both recipients yesterday were unsuccessful.

True purpose of scholarships

LET me disabuse all scholarship holders, past and present, of the notion that they are special people who in some way deserve to be provided with an expensive free education in prestigious foreign universities ("Drop ungrateful scholarship holders" by Ms Estella Young and "How successful have programmes been?" by Mr Justin Wang Qi Wei; last Friday).

A scholarship programme is not about the recipients, their careers, their earnings or their ever-changing interests; it is about the maximisation of our national intellectual capital for the benefit of society.

Scholarship holders are very fortunate people who were given financial support by their fellow citizens to further their studies, in view of their desire, commitment and potential capability to serve as leaders in specific fields, either in public service or in the private sector.

Scholarships are awarded because there has been a meeting of minds and a common purpose between the recipients and society.

Those who harbour grandiose illusions about their own talents and a matching false sense of entitlement should never apply for a scholarship. Those who treat scholarships solely as opportunities to secure fame, prestige and an easy road to self-serving ends should abstain, lest they waste everybody's time.

Those who, at the end of their studies, did a cost-benefit analysis of bond-breaking should ask for moral guidance.

Not keeping their end of the bargain after successfully completing their studies is not merely a breakdown of a transaction between the scholarship holder and the Government, but also a grave affront to the trust, honour and respect that we normally reserve for recipients who served our society humbly and dutifully.

Lee Hock Seng (Dr)
ST Forum, 2 Dec 2014

Post by TODAY.

Drop ungrateful scholarship holders

WHILE funding for the local arts scene is always welcome, it is disappointing to see Dr Eng Kai Er use her one-woman arts grant as a thinly veiled attack on her scholarship agency ("A*Star scientist starts arts grant in protest against six-year bond"; Tuesday).

Depicting herself as the hapless victim of a scholarship bond and describing her scientific research as "narcissistic, masturbatory work" that she is not interested in show a shocking lack of appreciation for the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on her doctoral studies, not to mention the academic and professional opportunities afforded to her.

It would have been far more honourable for Dr Eng to resign her scholarship once she had resolved not to pursue a scientific career. Remaining employed in the field while publicly sniping at the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) and the scholarship system is simply biting the hand that fed her.

I hope Dr Eng's example will not deter public and private agencies from offering scholarships to deserving students. Many scholarship holders, myself included, served out their bonds with dedication and gratitude to the last day.

Parents and schools need to help teens develop the maturity to be clear-minded about the scholarships they choose and the work they wish to do in future.

Eighteen is not too young an age to make a commitment for the next decade of one's life. A six-year bond is hardly indentured slavery: The savvy scholarship holder who dislikes his job would use the opportunity to hone his professional skills and position himself for his post-bond career change.

Since Dr Eng is unlikely to remain in the scientific field beyond her bond, A*Star might be better off terminating her bond immediately and channelling the estimated $700,000 in liquidated damages to a more deserving party.

Companies should not feel obliged to keep employees who make no bones about their lack of commitment to their jobs.

Estella Young (Ms)
ST Forum, 28 Nov 2014

How successful have programmes been?

I READ with disbelief the article ("A*Star scientist starts arts grant in protest against six-year bond"; Tuesday).

How could someone be so cavalier about the use of public funds and ignorant of the fact that the Government's budget is largely a zero-sum affair - for every dollar spent on funding Dr Eng Kai Er's education, one less dollar was made available to another government agency to perhaps upgrade our infrastructure, help the less fortunate, or shore up our reserves against some future catastrophe?

She has the gall to bemoan that she has been all but forced to live in pain as she serves her bond, severed from complete immersion in her interests.

I am not quite sure how much suffering she is undergoing compared to more existential sensations stemming from hunger or chronic illness, but it must be quite painful indeed - at least enough to numb her sense of duty or shame.

I hope Dr Eng is an outlier in the greater scheme of things, and that the various scholarship programmes have had far greater returns from our scholarship holders as a whole.

Perhaps government agencies could share with the public some metrics on how successful their scholarship programmes have been, as well as what action is being taken to utilise individuals like Dr Eng who have become disengaged with the line of work to which they have been bonded.

Justin Wang Qi Wei
ST Forum, 28 Nov 2014

A*Star scientist starts arts grant in protest against six-year bond
By Sandra Davie Senior Education Correspondent, The Straits Times, 25 Nov 2014

A RESEARCH scholar from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) who strolled naked through Holland Village five years ago is creating a buzz online with another radical move.

Dr Eng Kai Er, 30, now a scientist in an A*Star laboratory and a dancer-choreographer, has launched an arts grant to protest against her six-year scholarship bond with the agency.

Under the No Star Arts Grant - which she initially called the A*Star Arts Grant - she has pledged to give $1,000 a month from her salary to support arts projects for a year.

In her blog post before it was edited, Dr Eng, who studied at Cambridge University and Swedish medical university Karolinska Institute on an A*Star scholarship, explained why she decided to give out the grant.

"Eng Kai Er is not interested in science at all, but has to serve her bond or pay, as of 30 September 2014, around $741,657.37 in order to quit her job," she wrote.

"Since she understands the pain of having a paid job that is not aligned with her interests, she wishes to change the world by having more instances of paid jobs aligned with people's interest."

She went on to say how she prefers to support arts projects that are unlikely to receive other sources of funding.

In 2009, the former Hwa Chong Junior College student was fined $2,000 for stripping and walking down Lorong Mambong with Swedish exchange student Jan Philip "for a thrill".

She was given a warning by A*Star but allowed to keep her scholarship, which paid for her studies up to PhD level. For that, she was bonded for six years.

It is believed that Dr Eng - who is part of a programme to groom directors at The Substation Theatre and recently staged a play titled Fish - tried transferring her bond to the National Arts Council but was unsuccessful.

Her latest stunt has provoked mixed reactions from the public.

Business development executive Malcolm Tan, 44, felt Dr Eng should have refused the scholarship early on and should now bear the responsibility for her privileged education.

"It would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. There should be a bond."

Others though felt that the Government should be flexible and allow scholarship holders to serve out their bonds in their areas of interest.

Another bonded government scholarship holder, who declined to be named, told The Straits Times: "Really, what do you know when you are 18 years old. It's only later that you get a feel of where your interests truly lie. But by then it's too late."

The Necessary Stage's artistic director Alvin Tan said Dr Eng's grant "makes possible an alternative form or platform of giving to the arts".

The Straits Times asked A*Star about its policy on transferring the bonds of scholarship holders and on Dr Eng originally naming the grant after the agency, but it did not get back by press time.

Upholding public support for scholarships
Editorial, The Straits Times, 8 Dec 2014

KINDLY Singaporeans would wish for A*Star scholar Eng Kai Er the equanimity to settle down in the scientific path that she herself had chosen and reaffirmed earlier - both for her own sake and for the fulfilment of legal and moral obligations. Sadly, that pursuit now appears as "narcissistic, masturbatory work", as she put it. But when duty calls, it is proper to dedicate oneself to any task in a positive and collaborative spirit. Then, Dr Eng might have the deep satisfaction, at the end of her bond period, of having given back to society and to an institution that gamely supports further studies for worthy reasons - to develop talent and to enhance a small nation's big research drive.

That might stay a forlorn hope, of course, until she stops waging a determined campaign against her employer. Sulking is an indulgence that is clearly out of place after one has benefited from a plum scholarship - twice in Dr Eng's case, first at illustrious Cambridge University and later at the world-renowned Karolinska Institute. Singapore taxpayers paid for her top-flight education and precious resources were devoted to training her in infection biology, and these represent a lost opportunity to other candidates who might have had to settle for less.

But the issue at hand goes well beyond the antics of one disgruntled scholar. Should society settle for much less when a scholar changes his or her mind and wants out? Even if bond-breaking damages of around $740,000 as of last September were repaid by Dr Eng, as contract law and honour dictate, this would scarcely make up for the social harm caused. This arises when the nation's brightest take the best out of the system and then choose to "bite the hand that has fed them", as one citizen said. Such behaviour undermines public support for scholarships, paid for with taxpayers' hard-earned money.

Predictably, public ire has poured forth. Fallen scholars have been criticised for their sense of entitlement and egocentric impulses, both fed by elitist notions of being "A*" achievers and "Stars" to boot, as wags cheekily suggest.

These comments certainly do injustice to the many scholars who give their best in diverse fields and to scholarship schemes that give the less well-off, too, a big break while partly stemming a brain drain, given the thousands of doctoral scholarships available worldwide. Singapore's system of public scholarships is one of the ways in which it keeps its system open to talent regardless of background, thereby helping to promote social mobility and inclusiveness. To preserve public confidence in this institution, it behoves every scholar to live up to society's expectations of them.

Related
Dancing out of A*Star
A-star scholar biting the hand that feeds her
Why Dr Eng Kai Er deserves no sympathy