I refer to the letter Revive practice of 'bonding' students .
As medical students in the UK who're currently being sponsored by the government, my friends and I find this letter to be riddled with generalisations and inaccuracies that seem unfair to us.
First, it is not a fact that Malaysians here do not go home. A huge majority do return home, especially the ones who're sponsored by the government. The issue at hand is when exactly the students return home. And it is this issue that is pertinent to the question of 'bonding' students.
As far as I know, the main reason some government bodies do not 'bond' students is based on the rationale of sending students overseas in the first place ie, to be exposed to ethos and technology that might not be so readily available back home.
Most Malaysian doctors tend to go home after a brief specialist stint and while this may raise doubts in the minds of some, it is actually beneficial to our country at large because they are not only going home, but more importantly, they are bringing back valuable experience with them.
After all, five (and not seven, as stated in the letter) years of medical education at a university teaches you next to nothing about the realities of everyday medicine.
As for doctors in the UK receiving RM20,000 a month in the UK, that's another myth. That's for the highest paid doctors who work in London, but their pay is far less especially after you deduct the cost of living and the high income tax that is levied.
Arbibi said: 'Many suspect this is because top politicians don't want to bond their own children who get scholarships not based on merit.'
This statement riles me up the most. With reference to medicine, a number of factors should be true for this conspiracy theory to be held true. The last time I checked, there weren't that many 'politicians' children' who're on scholarship in the UK.
And secondly, in order to actually get into a university in the UK, you would have had to qualify based on merit. Unless the UK government is 'in' on it as well. In which case, I guess I stand corrected.
