The government spends about $238 million on scholarships and tuition grants for foreign students in schools and autonomous universities, said Education Minister Ong Ye Kung in Parliament yesterday (5 August).
He was responding to questions from WP MP Leon Perera who asked for exact figures on this particular spending. Mr Perera had in fact questioned the minister on this same issue in July but at the time, Mr Ong did not fully answer the question, which is why Mr Perera resubmitted his inquiry.
This time, Mr Ong noted again that about $130 million is spent on scholarships for foreign students in schools and autonomous universities – a figure he already specified in July. When pressed by Mr Perera yesterday, Mr Ong added that another $108 million is spent in tuition grants, bringing the total up to about $238 million a year. That’s roughly 1.8% of the Ministry of Education’s annual budget spent on scholarships and tuition grants for foreign students.
Mr Ong noted that his ministry’s annual budget of about $13 billion is “overwhelmingly spent on Singaporean students”, adding that in the last 10 year, government spending on international students in terms of scholarships and tuition grants has fallen by about 50%
We did note in a previous article that the then-Minister of Education Heng Swee Keat said in 2014 that the tuition grants for international students come up to about $210 million per year. So five years ago, the government spent $210 million a year on tuition grants for foreign students but now that figure has dropped by more than 50% to $108 million.
In his response to Mr Perera’s questions, Mr Ong noted that the core objective of the education system is to serve the needs of Singaporeans. He stressed that no Singaporean student is ever displaced from an institute of higher learning (IHL) because of international students.
“Beyond the heavy government subsidies available to all Singaporean students, there is also financial aid in the form of assistance and bursaries to ensure that fees remain affordable for lower and middle income families,” clarified Mr Ong.
Talking about his earlier answer regarding the $130 million in government spending on scholarships for international students, Mr Ong explained that the figure is a nominal one that represents the worth of the scholarship to the students, not the cost to the education system as a whole.
He used an analogy of restaurant vouchers to explain:
“Let’s say a restaurant gives a $100 voucher to a customer. So the voucher is worth $100 to the customer but the incremental cost to the restaurant must less because the cost of rental, utilities, service staff et cetera are more or less fixed already whether the customer turns up or not.”
By that same logic, Mr Ong explained that even if Singapore sends back all its international students who are on scholarships, the country will save much less than $130 million because costs such as staff salaries and overhead fees still have to be forked out to keep a university running.
Mr Ong also noted Singaporeans pay around 25% of the total cost of university fees, but “even after tuition grant, a foreigner will still pay twice the amount” that a Singaporean does.

The benefits of having more international students

Mr Ong moved on to explain that having foreign students presents Singaporean students with the opportunity to build bonds with students from other countries and expand their networks. “This is an increasingly important aspect of education because we are all working in a globalised multicultural world,” he emphasised.
Echoing points made before, Mr Ong said that international students can potentially contribute to Singapore as well. He talked about how many students eventually “sink roots, take up permanent residency or citizenship, or raise their families” in Singapore.
“Even if they decide to leave Singapore after fulfilling their obligations, they can be part of our valuable global network of fans and friends who can speak up for Singapore from time to time and forge collaborations with Singapore.”
Mr Ong then proceeded to mention that every reputable IHL around the world admits international students and provides some form of financial support. The best universities in the world like Yale and Oxford all have a diverse international student body, says Mr Ong, far more than IHLs in Singapore.
He also notes that top institutions like Princeton in the US had a “needs blind” admission system which admits students based on merits, not financial capability. Financial assistance is provided to students who meet the admissions requirement but are unable to pay. Mr Ong says Singaporean students have benefited from these offers as well.
He noted that many universities in Europe offer free or heavily subsidised fees and scholarships for international students and there are currently about 400 Singaporeans studying in French and German universities, benefiting from the highly subsidised fees.
“We give some and take some,” said Mr Ong. “Our IHL cannot depart from this international practice norm and has to be part of this global education network.”
Later, NMP Associate Professor Walter Thesiera queried the Education Minister on the prospect of converting more foreign students into net fee payers. He said, “I think we can all agree that there’s going to be a pool of international talent we need to compete for and we need to give them some inducement to come but there could be other students out there who might be more than willing to come who can afford to be net fee payers. And in fact a lot of universities in the UK, US and Australia depend on a large volley of foreign students who are net fee payers and who will in fact subsidise the local students.”
In response, Mr Ong said that some of the foreign students in Singapore today are already net fee payers who do not receive tuition grants or scholarships.

Do the benefits justify the spending?

Mr Perera later pointed out that in some of the cases mentioned by Mr Ong, it is the universities that offer the financial aid for foreign students from their large endowments, not the governments. He then asked, “Given those points of reciprocity and being part of the network, can I ask if the ministry tracks or does the ministry know what is the comparable amount of government spending that other developed countries actually provide to other students studying in their countries proportionately as a percentage of their education budget?”
On this, Mr Ong said he does not have the figures on how much other governments spend on foreign students. “We can try to find out some numbers but there is no doubt that all systems around the world use their universities to attract talent, all over the world. And Singapore students are also targeted. There’s a fight for talent in the whole world. I think we can’t run away from that,” said the minister.
He also noted Mr Perera’s point that in institutions overseas, it’s the universities that provide the financial assistance instead of the government. Mr Ong explained that the system in Singapore is a little different as “autonomous universities are all government run”. “Ours is a more public and centralised system,” he added, unlike the state and private university system in other countries.
Mr Perera also questioned how the benefits of having international students are measured. Specifically, he asked if the Ministry of Education looks at the impact of spending on foreign students over time and if they know the economic multipliers of retaining high quality foreign students to later enter the workforce as compared to recruiting foreign talent from the open market without spending on foreign students in the education system.
To this, Mr Ong didn’t offer specific answers but welcomed the academia to study the matter. Even so, he said “we know this has been beneficial to Singapore. So it in the right proportion. Don’t overdo it, don’t under do it.”
Mr Ong then asked Mr Perera for his position on the matter and whether he or his party is advocating for a zero international student policy.
To this, Mr Perera said that his personal position is that some funding is for international student is justified but feels that the current amount being forked out by Singapore is on the high side.
He said, “To me it seems on the high side but I do keep an open mind because I think if the government can provide reasons that this practice generates, for example economic multipliers, that we attract foreigners to stay here who wouldn’t otherwise come, if there is data on what other government are doing, if the spending is comparable on the part of other governments so that there is reciprocity, we are doing our part as good global citizens, I would certainly keep an open mind to say that that figure is and that balance point is the right one.”

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

竟比车子还快?!个人代步工具超速令网民乍舌

竟然还有比车子还更快的个人代步工具?近日网上流传一段个人代步工具飙车视频,其车速竟然比计程车的速度还快!令网民跌破眼镜。 该视频被上传至SG Reckless PMD Riders的脸书页面,共8秒长,画面显示一辆电动滑板车在碧山一带的马路上行驶呼啸而过,速度超前,更甚于隔壁的德士司机,它原本是在计程车的后方,但却将计程车超越,将计程车远远抛在后面。 此外,在视频内也可清楚听见电动滑板车呼啸而过,“咻”的声响,犹如跑车的声响,可见它的速度是相当惊人。该视频虽然只有短短8秒但却可以看见电动滑板车以风驰电掣的速度行驶,而该视频曝光后,立即引起疯传,目前已获得1200的转载与至少187个留言。 网友纷纷揶揄该电动踏板车的速度“惊人”,甚至是有人说是为了训练”未来电动踏板车“比赛而准备? 网友Randy Chong:这是一去不回头的行为。在冒险前请先想想是否值得为了这几分钟而危害自己的生命 网友Harold Chong :哇这么快。有”咻“的声音…

缩短车程达55分钟 地铁跨岛线直穿自然保护区

自2013年宣布兴建跨岛线,经咨询公众与自然爱好组织,陆交局决定沿着自然保护区底下“直接”跨岛。 交通部宣布,有关跨岛路线的研究方案将于明年开始,可能会需要两年的时间完成研究。该项决策已权衡各项因素,包括不同利益相关者,以及对破坏环境的评估,决定采用直达的方式。 但相较其他方案,该决策直达的方式能让新加坡人减少至少六分钟的通勤时间。目前从白沙到裕廊,搭地铁和巴士需约90分钟,有了跨岛线,可缩短到约55分钟。 此外,由于路线较短,民众也可以支付较低的票价,也为纳税人的建筑成本减少约20亿元。 “就长期而言,这是一项更具环保的选择,因为其能耗更低”,陆交局表示。 在地底穿过自然保护区建造的直透路线全长约四公里,经过新加坡乡村俱乐部、中央积水自然保护区、以及泛岛高速公路。其中两公里隧道将建在麦里芝保护区底下。 然而针对自然保护区的建设,新加坡基础设施统筹部长兼交通部长许文远表示,调整路线时曾一度陷入胶着状况,因为自然保护区是新加坡较特殊的部分,他感谢自然团体的建议和理解,并承诺在项目研究与建设时,持续与他们合作。 据悉,其绕道路线沿着自然保护区边缘建造,全长九公里,深45米,其中更需避开主要设施如环线隧道、汤申东海岸线地下隧道、深隧道阴沟系统及高压电缆隧道等。 其隧道最深达70米左右,犹如25层楼组屋,并全程以花岗岩石层挖掘,减少施工造成的震动,以及避免土壤移动。 许文远表示,跨岛线对于需要经常通勤至跨岛的民众而言是非常重要的,大大提升了他们的生活质量。 “跨岛线也会对其他地铁枢纽线如裕廊湖区,以及盛港、榜鹅与后港的按单建屋新地区都有着重大影响,至少能够满足一百万人次通勤需求。” 据了解,在咨询期间,若干自然组织针对建设所带来的影响提出异议,并表示若未能采取缓解措施,其动植物的生态环境将会遭受破坏。…

High Commissioner risks his health despite COVID-19 to fly to Chennai drawing investments for India

It was reported by the Indian media last Wed (21 Oct) that…

李玮玲:媒体一再重复总理对显扬”不实且可耻指控“

已故建国总理李光耀的女儿李玮玲,今早(4月15日)在个人脸书发文抨击,近期媒体报导不断重复哥哥李显龙总理,对李显扬的“不实且可耻的指控”(false and dishonourable allegations),指后者涉及诈欺父亲以在遗嘱中获得更多份额。   “这根本就是说谎。”不过,李玮玲没有指名道姓是哪家媒体的报导。   在2017年成立的部长委员会,李显龙的宣誓声明指责,李显扬身为律师的妻子林学芬,有份参与最终遗嘱的拟定。李显龙直指,弟媳林学芬身为利害关係人直接参与遗嘱的订立“耐人寻味”,並且“似乎涉及利益衝突”。   不过,李显扬也已反驳,自己的妻子从未担任李光耀的律师,“父亲的遗嘱在五年前就执行。当父亲完成遗嘱后,告知全家和他的律师,遗嘱由李&李律师事务所保管。”   至于李玮玲,在上述脸书贴文也指出,在2012年,父亲确有打算在遗嘱中分给他较多的份额,但是在2013年,又重新回归到公平分配的决定。…