“HE's free from stains who seeks no gains”— I didn't understand the maxim at all when it was penned down in my autograph book by my Chinese teacher when I was graduating from secondary school, nor have I ever approached that moral height later. For years, I just cherished those wise words as a hope so fondly put on me by one who had been brought up with a conventional Chinese-medium education.
Now the memories have been revived by the recent controversy over the “intended” bond-breaking by a number of scholars.
The 11 anonymous government scholarship recipients were under fire, whereas Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan suggested a review of the scholarship system.
“Played up” out of proportion by some Straits Times journalists, those scholars' answer to a hypothetical query has aroused waves of criticism and denunciation. Moreover, it has set people re-thinking about the issue of moral principles and obligations.
Actually, quizzing the scholars about the probability of their bond-breaking is akin to asking a pair of newlyweds how likely it is that they will end up divorcing.
Meaningfully, many other scholars had to respond by issuing a joint statement to pledge their dutiful compliance with the bonds they had accepted. It seems proper and correct that, at this juncture, they should clarify their own position or express their righteous indignation.
Could we take it as accidental that, with one voice, the 11 scholars admitted to an intention of breaking the bond and then stuck to it even under pessure from public opinion？ Or could we believe the trouble will be easily cleared once the scholarship system is revised in some way？
True, the screening process may be readjusted so that only those ideally qualified are selected for scholarships. But will that solve the problem revealed by the event？
One is apt to overlook the general environment behind the event. It is the environment we created that has produced our elite.
No wonder, in a recent TV programme, Minister of State Ow Chin Hock asked whether anything had gone wrong in our education system and what had made our one-in-a-thousand elite so indifferent to their social obligations without feeling guilty.
The very idea of breaking a bond would have appeared unimaginable to the older generation with a Chinese-medium education. Brought up with the Confucian ethics, they would insist on keeping their word of honour even if that would mean losses to themselves. To them, a breach of faith would be an extremely shameful sin.
Despite the government's efforts to promote the teachings of Confucius, one can see little of the sage's ideal put into practice in our society.
Instead, we see fast and immediate profits being sought after by all, social values keyed to competition, and utility and efficiency stressed in every pursuit.
In education particularly, the top priority is given to young people's academic performance, with efforts put in constantly to make them work faster and faster, better and better.
And under the circumstances, we claim that we believe in all-round education which values morality, physique, aesthetic feeling, and human interaction as well as intelligence of the educated. Can people be convinced？
While something has gone wrong in education, our society has failed to set up worthy values for the youth, too. Where fast effects and A1 rankings are all that matters, little space is left for young people to embrace such values as propriety, righteousness, integrity and honour.
We have established economic benefit as the top criterion. To recruit talented youth, we promise them benefits and advantages, rather than appeal to their sense of moral obligations. Given such incentives, can our elite become anything but self-centred careerists？
Actually, people need not condemn the potential bond-breakers or feel shocked at their deeds and words, as these are natural results of the causes. Nor should we conveniently lay the blame on an influx of Western individualism or an undesirable anxiety to achieve quick success.
Rather, we should have a clear idea of where the problem lies. We have neglected — or refused to face — a flaw in our otherwise perfect growth, which has arisen from imbalance of policies or readjustments carried too far.
Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was certainly right when he pointed out this at the recent government scholarship presentation：
“It is wrong for scholars to think that the scholarship is a purely mercenary contract, and that they are entitled to try to maximise their own careers and prospects in this selfish way.”
Yet the problem will remain that one cannot clear our society of such pervasive selfish ways and calculations even if the scholarship system is revised. The revision, if anything, can only exclude some talented young people from the recipients' list.
Rather than spending our energy condemning the black sheep among the scholars, we might as well take some time and reflect on what exactly has gone wrong in the upbringing of our elite — and what can be done about it.
（The author is editor of Thumbs Up, a weekly newspaper for primary pupils. Translated by Allen Zhuang）
人格缺陷的精英時代
● 蔡深江
當(dāng)年中學(xué)華文老師在我的畢業(yè)紀(jì)念冊寫上“人無求時品自高”幾個字,那個時候我根本無法理解,也一直無法接近這樣的高標(biāo)準(zhǔn),只能把它看作是一個傳統(tǒng)華校生對學(xué)生的期許和勉勵。
面對近日沸沸揚揚的獎學(xué)金得主“預(yù)謀”毀約的新聞,我又想起了這句話。
許多人都把矛頭對準(zhǔn)了匿名的11名政府獎學(xué)金得主,陳慶炎副總理也提議重新檢討?yīng)剬W(xué)金的頒發(fā)條件。
這件由《海峽時報》記者“發(fā)掘”出來的新聞,只不過不成比例也不科學(xué)地挑起一種假設(shè),卻造成輿論群起聲討,也讓人民重新思考社會道義的問題。
向獎學(xué)金得主詢問毀約的可能性,如同在婚禮上不懷好意詢問新人離婚的機率。
更耐人尋味的是其他獎學(xué)金得主不得不隨之起舞,連忙發(fā)表“效忠”聲明,好像這個非常時刻不表態(tài)一番,便無法理直氣壯。
這11位獎學(xué)金得主向英文報記者異口同聲表示打算毀約,在輿論壓力下再次堅持初衷,我們還會天真地認(rèn)為這是一種偶然嗎？對制度的任何修正能夠避重就輕解決問題嗎？
也許獎學(xué)金得主的遴選過程可以重新調(diào)整,以便更精確找到正確且符合理想的人選,但這起事件帶出的問題得到了解答嗎？
在整個事件背后,有一個容易被人忽略的大環(huán)境起關(guān)鍵影響,我們提供了怎樣的成長環(huán)境,就會成就怎樣的人才。
歐進福政務(wù)部長在一個電視節(jié)目上也提問,是不是我們的教育出了問題？為什么這一小部分萬里挑一的精英如此漠視自己的社會責(zé)任,并且絲毫不覺得理虧？
毀約的念頭對早期華校生來說,是不可思議的。對孔孟思想稍有認(rèn)識的人寧可天下人負(fù)己,絕不負(fù)天下人。背信棄義對傳統(tǒng)華文知識分子而言,是羞愧的、見不得人的。
雖然我們也努力提倡儒家思想,放眼新加坡社會,儒家的理念貫徹了幾分？
眼下人人追求目前的短暫利益,社會價值鼓勵競爭,強調(diào)功利與效率,學(xué)校重視學(xué)業(yè)表現(xiàn),在力求更快更新更好的大前提下,我們再回過頭來說,我們也重視德智體群美,有說服力嗎？
如果說學(xué)校教育出了問題,試問社會為學(xué)生立下了什么道德標(biāo)準(zhǔn)？一個處處講求時效,口口聲聲爭第一的社會,留給學(xué)生多少消化吸收禮義廉恥的空間？
我們以經(jīng)濟效益為最認(rèn)真重要的指標(biāo),爭取人才的條件不再是冠冕堂皇的價值道義,而是好處與利益。這樣的觀念下產(chǎn)生的精英,能不勢利嗎？
社會大眾其實不必對坦言毀約的獎學(xué)金得主痛加責(zé)難,他們的說詞與行為表現(xiàn)應(yīng)該有跡可尋,實在不應(yīng)感到太過意外,也不要老套地指向西方個人主義思想的泛濫,或是急功近利的短見。
今天出現(xiàn)這樣的局面,我們應(yīng)該心里有數(shù),只不過我們忽略了,或是不承認(rèn)我們在成長的過程,因政策的不平衡,或是太徹底的調(diào)整動作,造成的遺憾。
誠如副總理李顯龍在政府獎學(xué)金頒獎儀式上所言,“把獎學(xué)金當(dāng)成是雇傭合約,并以為可以借著它來開拓個人的事業(yè)和前途,這不只錯誤,也是自私自利的想法?！?BR> 問題是,我們再怎么修改和更新獎學(xué)金的頒發(fā)制度,只可能將這些有天資和潛能的年輕人排除在名單以外,卻無法消除普遍存在的自以為是而自私自利的念頭。
與其把精力消耗在譴責(zé)這些害群之馬,不如從根本上全盤思考青年才俊的成就路上,到底出了什么問題,該如何亡羊補牢。
Now the memories have been revived by the recent controversy over the “intended” bond-breaking by a number of scholars.
The 11 anonymous government scholarship recipients were under fire, whereas Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan suggested a review of the scholarship system.
“Played up” out of proportion by some Straits Times journalists, those scholars' answer to a hypothetical query has aroused waves of criticism and denunciation. Moreover, it has set people re-thinking about the issue of moral principles and obligations.
Actually, quizzing the scholars about the probability of their bond-breaking is akin to asking a pair of newlyweds how likely it is that they will end up divorcing.
Meaningfully, many other scholars had to respond by issuing a joint statement to pledge their dutiful compliance with the bonds they had accepted. It seems proper and correct that, at this juncture, they should clarify their own position or express their righteous indignation.
Could we take it as accidental that, with one voice, the 11 scholars admitted to an intention of breaking the bond and then stuck to it even under pessure from public opinion？ Or could we believe the trouble will be easily cleared once the scholarship system is revised in some way？
True, the screening process may be readjusted so that only those ideally qualified are selected for scholarships. But will that solve the problem revealed by the event？
One is apt to overlook the general environment behind the event. It is the environment we created that has produced our elite.
No wonder, in a recent TV programme, Minister of State Ow Chin Hock asked whether anything had gone wrong in our education system and what had made our one-in-a-thousand elite so indifferent to their social obligations without feeling guilty.
The very idea of breaking a bond would have appeared unimaginable to the older generation with a Chinese-medium education. Brought up with the Confucian ethics, they would insist on keeping their word of honour even if that would mean losses to themselves. To them, a breach of faith would be an extremely shameful sin.
Despite the government's efforts to promote the teachings of Confucius, one can see little of the sage's ideal put into practice in our society.
Instead, we see fast and immediate profits being sought after by all, social values keyed to competition, and utility and efficiency stressed in every pursuit.
In education particularly, the top priority is given to young people's academic performance, with efforts put in constantly to make them work faster and faster, better and better.
And under the circumstances, we claim that we believe in all-round education which values morality, physique, aesthetic feeling, and human interaction as well as intelligence of the educated. Can people be convinced？
While something has gone wrong in education, our society has failed to set up worthy values for the youth, too. Where fast effects and A1 rankings are all that matters, little space is left for young people to embrace such values as propriety, righteousness, integrity and honour.
We have established economic benefit as the top criterion. To recruit talented youth, we promise them benefits and advantages, rather than appeal to their sense of moral obligations. Given such incentives, can our elite become anything but self-centred careerists？
Actually, people need not condemn the potential bond-breakers or feel shocked at their deeds and words, as these are natural results of the causes. Nor should we conveniently lay the blame on an influx of Western individualism or an undesirable anxiety to achieve quick success.
Rather, we should have a clear idea of where the problem lies. We have neglected — or refused to face — a flaw in our otherwise perfect growth, which has arisen from imbalance of policies or readjustments carried too far.
Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was certainly right when he pointed out this at the recent government scholarship presentation：
“It is wrong for scholars to think that the scholarship is a purely mercenary contract, and that they are entitled to try to maximise their own careers and prospects in this selfish way.”
Yet the problem will remain that one cannot clear our society of such pervasive selfish ways and calculations even if the scholarship system is revised. The revision, if anything, can only exclude some talented young people from the recipients' list.
Rather than spending our energy condemning the black sheep among the scholars, we might as well take some time and reflect on what exactly has gone wrong in the upbringing of our elite — and what can be done about it.
（The author is editor of Thumbs Up, a weekly newspaper for primary pupils. Translated by Allen Zhuang）
人格缺陷的精英時代
● 蔡深江
當(dāng)年中學(xué)華文老師在我的畢業(yè)紀(jì)念冊寫上“人無求時品自高”幾個字,那個時候我根本無法理解,也一直無法接近這樣的高標(biāo)準(zhǔn),只能把它看作是一個傳統(tǒng)華校生對學(xué)生的期許和勉勵。
面對近日沸沸揚揚的獎學(xué)金得主“預(yù)謀”毀約的新聞,我又想起了這句話。
許多人都把矛頭對準(zhǔn)了匿名的11名政府獎學(xué)金得主,陳慶炎副總理也提議重新檢討?yīng)剬W(xué)金的頒發(fā)條件。
這件由《海峽時報》記者“發(fā)掘”出來的新聞,只不過不成比例也不科學(xué)地挑起一種假設(shè),卻造成輿論群起聲討,也讓人民重新思考社會道義的問題。
向獎學(xué)金得主詢問毀約的可能性,如同在婚禮上不懷好意詢問新人離婚的機率。
更耐人尋味的是其他獎學(xué)金得主不得不隨之起舞,連忙發(fā)表“效忠”聲明,好像這個非常時刻不表態(tài)一番,便無法理直氣壯。
這11位獎學(xué)金得主向英文報記者異口同聲表示打算毀約,在輿論壓力下再次堅持初衷,我們還會天真地認(rèn)為這是一種偶然嗎？對制度的任何修正能夠避重就輕解決問題嗎？
也許獎學(xué)金得主的遴選過程可以重新調(diào)整,以便更精確找到正確且符合理想的人選,但這起事件帶出的問題得到了解答嗎？
在整個事件背后,有一個容易被人忽略的大環(huán)境起關(guān)鍵影響,我們提供了怎樣的成長環(huán)境,就會成就怎樣的人才。
歐進福政務(wù)部長在一個電視節(jié)目上也提問,是不是我們的教育出了問題？為什么這一小部分萬里挑一的精英如此漠視自己的社會責(zé)任,并且絲毫不覺得理虧？
毀約的念頭對早期華校生來說,是不可思議的。對孔孟思想稍有認(rèn)識的人寧可天下人負(fù)己,絕不負(fù)天下人。背信棄義對傳統(tǒng)華文知識分子而言,是羞愧的、見不得人的。
雖然我們也努力提倡儒家思想,放眼新加坡社會,儒家的理念貫徹了幾分？
眼下人人追求目前的短暫利益,社會價值鼓勵競爭,強調(diào)功利與效率,學(xué)校重視學(xué)業(yè)表現(xiàn),在力求更快更新更好的大前提下,我們再回過頭來說,我們也重視德智體群美,有說服力嗎？
如果說學(xué)校教育出了問題,試問社會為學(xué)生立下了什么道德標(biāo)準(zhǔn)？一個處處講求時效,口口聲聲爭第一的社會,留給學(xué)生多少消化吸收禮義廉恥的空間？
我們以經(jīng)濟效益為最認(rèn)真重要的指標(biāo),爭取人才的條件不再是冠冕堂皇的價值道義,而是好處與利益。這樣的觀念下產(chǎn)生的精英,能不勢利嗎？
社會大眾其實不必對坦言毀約的獎學(xué)金得主痛加責(zé)難,他們的說詞與行為表現(xiàn)應(yīng)該有跡可尋,實在不應(yīng)感到太過意外,也不要老套地指向西方個人主義思想的泛濫,或是急功近利的短見。
今天出現(xiàn)這樣的局面,我們應(yīng)該心里有數(shù),只不過我們忽略了,或是不承認(rèn)我們在成長的過程,因政策的不平衡,或是太徹底的調(diào)整動作,造成的遺憾。
誠如副總理李顯龍在政府獎學(xué)金頒獎儀式上所言,“把獎學(xué)金當(dāng)成是雇傭合約,并以為可以借著它來開拓個人的事業(yè)和前途,這不只錯誤,也是自私自利的想法?！?BR> 問題是,我們再怎么修改和更新獎學(xué)金的頒發(fā)制度,只可能將這些有天資和潛能的年輕人排除在名單以外,卻無法消除普遍存在的自以為是而自私自利的念頭。
與其把精力消耗在譴責(zé)這些害群之馬,不如從根本上全盤思考青年才俊的成就路上,到底出了什么問題,該如何亡羊補牢。