Connect with us

Opinion

Students seeking more financial aid from NTU say foreign students are not the enemy

Opinion: A member of NTU Financial Aid Friends disputes the argument that aid to foreign students prevents locals from affording education.

She argue that the issues lie in structural inadequacies like insufficient financial aid and inflexible grant conditions.

The group is striving to expose these issues, and ensure all students, regardless of nationality, can access affordable education.

Published

1 year ago

on

by Adi

I am an Economics and Engineering student at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and a member of NTU Financial Aid Friends, a group of NTU students who believe that urgent changes need to be made in NTU’s Financial Aid system to improve access to the public education we deserve.

To learn more about our campaign, visit our Instagram page or read coverage of our campaign by The Online Citizen, TodayOnline, and Mothership.

I refer to Leong Sze Hian’s article for The Online Citizen titled “NTU students’ struggle with financial aid: One in three in distress amid $238M expenditure on foreign students and 4.1% real tuition fee increase”.

I respond to the main thrust of Leong’s article, which argues that spending on foreign students’ subsidies, tuition grants, and scholarships is partly responsible for why local NTU students cannot afford to go to school.

NTU Financial Aid Friends strongly disagrees with this slant, which seems to pit locals against foreigners. We feel that a lack of access to public education is something which is keenly felt by both local and international students.

Furthermore, we feel that framing the issue in this manner distracts from the real structural issues which cause this lack of access, including inadequate Financial Aid, inflexible Tuition Grant conditions and many other barriers which prevent students from receiving their right to education.

Our campaign centres around seven key issues which we identified from talking to many of our fellow schoolmates, some of whom are Permanent Residents (PRs) and international students.

One of these key issues involves processes for international students.

Firstly, nearly all needs-based bursaries for undergraduates are restricted to Singaporeans and PRs, and only less than a quarter of donated bursaries do not mention local status as a requirement.

This means that international students which require assistance to fund their education in NTU must rely almost entirely on merit-based scholarships, which are extremely selective and come with restrictive terms and conditions.

Even if an international student chooses to take on a tuition loan to avoid high interest rates while financing the cost of their tuition fees, the guarantor process for international students is unreasonably difficult.

International students must find a Singaporean / PR guarantor and undergo complex processes which many students find impossible to complete when they first arrive in Singapore.

A main point of contention which is often raised about how public funds are used to subsidise the cost of education for international students and PRs is the MOE Tuition Grant.

The Tuition Grant effectively halves the cost of tuition for international students and reduces it to a third for PRs.

At first glance, this seems incredibly generous and a large use of public resources. However, the Tuition Grant comes with a contractual obligation to work in a Singapore entity, often in Singapore, for three years upon graduation.

For international students, as of September 2023, working in Singapore means needing to qualify for either an Employment Pass or an S Pass.

Employment Passes require a minimum qualifying salary of S$5,000 in managerial, executive or specialised jobs while passing a highly restrictive assessment framework (COMPASS).

This almost necessarily excludes many normal entry-level jobs open to fresh undergraduates. In the case of S Passes, while the minimum qualifying salary is S$3,000, which is lower, the number of S Pass jobs is limited by foreign-to-local ratio quotas and increasingly high levy costs.

There is no doubt that the contributions these graduates make towards Singapore’s economy far outweigh the public spending which goes into subsidising their tuition fees, given the nature of their jobs and the length of their bond.

Additionally, the terms associated with violating the conditions of the bond are severe because the entire liquidated damages must be repaid with a compounding interest rate of 10% per annum.

When we compare this to the terms of the exact same MOE Tuition Grant for a Singaporean like myself, we see that the terms are much more relaxed, given that we do not have to serve a bond. Most strikingly, the Tuition Grant subsidises our fees by a whopping three-quarters of the total amount.

To illustrate the difficulties foreign students face with financing their tuition fees, I would like to share the story of my friend Casey, an international student from the same Engineering course as me, whose family comes from a similar working-class background.

Both of us received the MOE Tuition Grant, but upon graduation in 2021, Casey struggled greatly with finding a job despite having an attractive Engineering degree and competitive grades.

Casey had just graduated during the pandemic when the job market practically grinded to a halt. During this time, finding a suitable job that paid higher than the qualifying wage and was willing to hire foreigners, amid tightening measures by the government not to accept Employment and S Pass applications from “high-risk” countries, was almost impossible.

After more than two years of trying to find a job while regularly renewing her Long Term Visit Pass, Casey has to pay the full cost of her bond including interest – an incredibly large amount which will land her into devastating debt.

Despite clauses in the Tuition Grant contract which state that waivers in the event of extenuating circumstances are possible, her appeals, given the job market in the pandemic, were rejected.

At this stage, the cost of the debt which she will incur is higher than the cost of the original unsubsidised tuition fees, which her family was not able to afford in the first place.

In comparison, during the duration of my degree, I paid a much lower sum of tuition fees, and upon graduation, I will not have to be bonded or repay any damages the way that Casey does.

International graduates like Casey want to serve their tuition bond, but often cannot due to the difficulty of finding jobs which fulfil criteria, especially during economic downturns.

There are many other ways that foreign students face precarity and lack of access, which local students often do not.

For example, during the height of the pandemic in 2021, thousands of international students who relied upon on-campus accommodation as their only affordable housing option were evicted, and the school gave them only two weeks’ notice to vacate.

This happened again in 2022, and once more, NTU gave an unreasonably short period of notice. Some had to fork out tens of thousands of dollars to obtain housing on the private rental market at the last minute.

I even personally know friends who effectively became homeless because they simply could not afford or did not have enough time, to find housing.

Many NTU students can recount anecdotes of Dean’s Listers and scholarship recipients who were found sleeping in tutorial rooms and computer labs. To add insult to injury, NTU had the gall to send out emails threatening hall-dwellers who let their friends stay over in their rooms with fines, eviction or expulsion.

In recent years, hall fees have increased by an annual rate of more than 10%, while food prices on campus have rocketed due to the rapid pace of inflation. It is becoming increasingly untenable for international students to survive the cost of education at NTU.

So, if international students are not the ones to blame for unaffordable education, then what is? We identified the following, in addition to the issues which international students face:

  • Unclear communication,

  • A lack of transparency,

  • Inflexible accommodations for extenuating circumstances,

  • Timeline issues,

  • An inadequate online system, and

  • Inadequate bursary amounts.

Most concerningly, NTU seems to disburse the lowest amount of guaranteed needs-based bursaries compared to the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Singapore Management University (SMU).

Across all public universities, the Ministry of Education (MOE) guarantees a subsidy of up to 75% of tuition fees for Singaporean students via the Higher Education and Higher Education Community Bursary.

Similar to the NUS Bursary and SMU Access / SMU Study Award, NTU also advertises its own school bursary, the NTU Bursary.

However, unlike NUS’ and SMU’s school bursaries, no eligibility criteria for the NTU Bursary is published on the website. Curiously, after speaking to close to 50 students (some of whom have household incomes of $0), we were unable to find a single student who received the NTU Bursary.

During our meeting with the NTU administration, they only stated that the NTU Bursary is disbursed to students in dire financial circumstances. NTU neglected to state any concrete requirements or disbursement amounts.

Only after our campaign had gained some traction were we able to come into contact with Budy Hartono, a Singaporean student who received the NTU Bursary. Despite his PCHI being $0, and several extenuating circumstances (including housing insecurity, caregiving duties and recurring medical expenses), he only received $1,300 worth of NTU Bursary on top of his Higher Education Community Bursary, meaning he was $700 short of the sum of his tuition fees.

In comparison, the total bursary amount received for a student in a comparable course in NUS would fully subsidise his tuition fees and disburse an additional S$6,450 on top of it! At SMU, he would have the full cost of his tuition fees covered, despite SMU’s higher tuition costs.

Why does NTU disburse such a low amount of bursaries? This is puzzling, to say the least, given that NTU has the second largest endowment fund in Singapore, with a reported sum of $2.75 billion as of 2022.

One of the main purposes of this endowment fund, which is largely derived from government funding, includes providing bursaries and scholarships to keep public education affordable.

In addition, NTU directs a large amount of resources towards sourcing donations from alumni, many of whom donate willingly because they trust that their donations will be channelled towards students who need it the most.

One option for where donations can go is the “NTU Bursary Fund” — if so many resources seem to be channelled towards these funds, why don’t NTU students see the results?

NTU counters our arguments by stating that more than 200 donated bursaries are available, but these donated bursaries often have additional eligibility criteria which reduce the chances of receiving bursaries given one’s co-curricular activities, grades and degree programmes.

Furthermore, donated bursaries are not guaranteed given a student’s household income the way that school bursaries should be.

It becomes clear that international students, Singaporeans and PRs have a lot more in common with each other in our struggles to afford our education than we have been led to believe.

Our interests do not lie in opposition to each other. Conversely, our strength is magnified when we stand united. NTU Financial Aid Friends was founded on the principle of the right to education, and we continue to advocate for that right.

Foreign students are just as deserving of a quality tertiary education as any other. The focus of Financial Aid Friends’ current advocacy is to demand accountability and transparency from the administrative bodies of NTU.

We recognise that the conditions which cause us to be unable to access NTU’s public education are the same, regardless of nationality, even if they manifest in different ways.

Financial Aid Friends have and will stand for the right of ALL students to receive an affordable tertiary education. Regardless of nationality, we stand united in our fight for accessible education for all.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
20 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
20 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Opinion

A tragic reminder: The urgent need for defamation law reform in Singapore

Opinion: The tragic suicide of Geno Ong highlights the emotional and financial toll of defamation lawsuits in Singapore, where plaintiffs often aren’t required to prove reputational damage. Her case, alongside others, calls for urgent reform to ensure fairer balance between protecting reputation and free speech.

Published

4 days ago

on

9 September 2024

By

The recent suicide of Geno Ong has once again cast a spotlight on the nature of defamation laws in Singapore and the pressures they exert on those caught in legal battles.

Ong’s tragic note, accusing businessman Raymond Ng of financially and emotionally breaking her through lawsuits, reflects the personal toll of defamation cases in a jurisdiction where proving damage to reputation is not always required.

This backdrop invites a broader reflection on how defamation laws in Singapore are structured, particularly when compared to other legal systems like the UK’s.

In the UK, as seen in the recent case of British billionaire Sir James Dyson, courts demand that plaintiffs demonstrate significant reputational harm.

Dyson lost his defamation case against the Daily Mirror because he could not prove any financial loss stemming from the publication. This standard, established under the UK’s Defamation Act 2013, creates a higher threshold for plaintiffs, emphasizing the need to show serious damage.

In contrast, Singapore’s defamation laws, as demonstrated in the recent legal victory of Singaporean Ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan against Lee Hsien Yang (LHY), do not require proof of reputational damage.

The Ministers successfully argued that LHY’s Facebook post insinuated corrupt practices, even though LHY maintained that his post did not imply personal benefit or corruption. The Singapore court sided with the Ministers, and LHY did not pursue a counterclaim.

Comparing Legal Standards: Singapore vs. the UK

This divergence between the UK and Singapore is stark. While Sir James Dyson’s lawsuit was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of financial loss, the Singaporean Ministers’ lawsuit prevailed based on the interpretation of a Facebook post, with no need to prove actual harm.

In Singapore, it is often the defendant’s responsibility to disprove the defamation, a legal structure that may make it easier for powerful individuals to pursue and win defamation suits.

For critics, this represents a significant flaw in Singapore’s defamation laws, as the threshold for sustaining defamation suits is relatively low. Plaintiffs in Singapore are not required to show reputational damage or financial loss, leading to concerns that defamation laws may be used by the wealthy and powerful to silence critics, rather than to address legitimate harm.

The Impact on Free Speech and Public Discourse

These cases raise important questions about the balance between protecting individuals from defamation and safeguarding freedom of speech.

In the case of LHY, one might question what reputational harm the Ministers could have suffered when they remained in power and continued to be elected by the public.

Should defamation lawsuits be used when public figures face criticism in a democratic society? These legal actions, especially when successful, may have a chilling effect on free speech, discouraging citizens from voicing concerns about public figures for fear of legal retaliation.

Similarly, in the case of Geno Ong, Raymond Ng’s defamation lawsuits against her raise significant questions about the actual damage to his reputation.

Ong’s accusations, while serious, appeared to target a niche social media audience and did not seem to widely impact Ng’s standing or business operations.

Given his continued involvement in business, it becomes difficult to argue that Ng’s reputation suffered substantial harm from Ong’s posts. This situation echoes broader concerns about Singapore’s defamation laws, where plaintiffs are not required to show clear evidence of reputational damage to succeed in their claims.

Moreover, the Ministers chose to serve LHY legal papers in the UK, a jurisdiction with a higher threshold for defamation claims, through social messaging rather than physical service.

This decision, and the Ministers’ choice to pursue the case in Singapore rather than the UK, where the case might have been dismissed, raises concerns about fairness. Critics suggest that Singapore’s legal framework, influenced by long-standing laws and political structures, favours those in positions of power.

The Future of Defamation Laws in Singapore

The contrast between the Dyson case in the UK and the Ministers’ case in Singapore demonstrates how defamation laws in different jurisdictions can lead to significantly different outcomes.

In the UK, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove serious harm, offering greater protection to free speech. In Singapore, the burden often shifts to the defendant, creating a system where plaintiffs in positions of power can more easily sue for defamation without showing significant damage.

Without legislative reforms, defamation laws in Singapore may continue to be seen as tools that can be used by those in power to suppress criticism, stifling public discourse.

Geno Ong’s case, while rooted in personal tragedy, highlights the emotional and financial toll that defamation suits can have on ordinary individuals.

Ong’s story, alongside high-profile cases like those involving the Ministers and LHY, underscores the need for a deeper conversation about the purpose and fairness of defamation laws in Singapore.

Ultimately, Singapore must grapple with the question of whether its defamation laws strike the right balance between protecting reputations and upholding freedom of speech in a democratic society.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Charity or Campaigning?: The blurred line between aid and political influence in Singapore

Opinion: The intersection of charity and politics in Singapore raises questions when politicians appear at events like grocery distributions. While well-intentioned, such appearances can blur lines, influencing vulnerable voters who may associate aid with political figures, impacting free and fair competition.

Published

4 days ago

on

9 September 2024

By

The intersection of charity work and politics is a sensitive topic, particularly when voluntary organisations and political figures come together to distribute handouts.

In Singapore, where elections often see the People’s Action Party (PAP) dominate constituencies, these charity-driven distributions, whether intentional or not, sometimes blur the lines between volunteerism and political campaigning.

Grace Fu, a PAP politician representing Yuhua Single Member Constituency (SMC), posted on her Facebook page on 27 August, highlighting an event where student volunteers distributed groceries and household essentials to the residents of Yuhua.

This initiative, organised by the South West Community Development Council (CDC) and HRHS (好人好事), saw volunteers working to help defray living costs for residents.

While the post emphasized the role of kindness, the optics of Fu personally being present to hand out groceries may give rise to questions about the intent behind such appearances.

You can see similar events where Ms Fu is seen along with handouts by charitable organisations to residents in Yuhua.

This brings to mind a conversation I had with Robin Low, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) candidate who ran against Fu in the 2020 General Election.

Low shared his hopefulness during the campaign, buoyed by residents expressing dissatisfaction with the status quo and support for the SDP’s platform. Yet, despite this apparent backing, he was disheartened with the final results, receiving only 29.46% of the vote, a marginal improvement over the 2015 results but a step back from the 2011 outcome.

Low’s experience post-election provides a striking insight into how residents may interpret acts of charity. As he went back to thank voters, he had a conversation with one resident who had expressed support for SDP during the campaign.

When asked why he ultimately voted for Fu, the resident admitted that his decision was influenced by the gratitude he felt for a bag of rice he received, mistakenly believing it came from Fu herself. Low tried to explain that the rice was actually from the NGOs involved in the event, but the resident was confused, noting that Fu was present during the distribution.

This anecdote, while personal, illustrates a broader challenge in Singapore’s political landscape.

While the distribution of goods is often driven by NGOs and charitable causes, the close proximity of politicians to these events can leave a lasting impression on residents—one that may influence voting decisions, particularly among the poor.

For some, the gratitude felt for these handouts, even if provided by a neutral third party, can be transferred to the political figures who appear during the distribution.

This, in turn, complicates the narrative of free and fair political competition, especially when residents are left unclear as to the true source of the support.

The perception that politicians are directly responsible for handouts, whether accurate or not, can sway the votes of the more vulnerable populations who feel a sense of obligation or gratitude for this perceived generosity.

For poorer residents, the immediate and tangible relief from a bag of rice or household essentials may outweigh the less immediate and often abstract promises made during political campaigns. It highlights how acts of charity, even when unintentional, can play a powerful role in shaping electoral outcomes.

This scenario raises questions about the ethical implications of politicians being present at charitable distributions.

While these events can genuinely benefit residents, they also risk being seen as part of a larger campaign strategy, where goodwill is exchanged for political support. It is a complex dynamic that touches on the heart of political ethics in Singapore and calls for clearer boundaries between voluntary aid and electoral influence.

In a broader sense, this reflection encourages us to consider how the provision of aid, particularly to the poor, can be seen as a tool of influence.

Continue Reading

Trending