What advice would you give to students who feel hesitant about applying?
Apply. The consistent message from scholars is that perfect grades are not a prerequisite — what matters more is whether you can articulate your story, your fit with the organization, and why you want to spend the first years of your career there. Where there is a bond, genuine alignment matters. But don't self-reject before the process does.
Yes, I would still encourage them to apply, as long as it is an organisation that they are passionate about. One key thing to remember is that most scholarships come with bonds, which means that you will be spending the first 4–6 years of your career with them. So it is important to keep career aspirations in mind.
Definitely give it a try. I believe it's more about showing your passion to join public service and displaying knowledge of Singapore's economy and policies, rather than just having good grades or extracurriculars.
Yes — especially if it's a field that you see yourself contributing to in the future, something that aligns with your personal motivations, or where you can translate your academic interests towards your career. These are all good reasons for applying.
I don't have perfect grades either. Although good academics is a pre-requisite, I would say that understanding the inherent value that you offer is a bigger proposition to scholarship providers. What about your interests, story, background, and aspirations makes you different? The most important thing is to be authentic.
Have a good story. Why this organisation? What spurs your interest in this domain? Have you demonstrated interest through activities and programmes? If you authentically believe this is the right opportunity for you, it will shine through. Also — you miss 100% of the shots you don't take, so apply even if you are not sure.
I did not have perfect grades and I still made it into the final rounds of multiple interviews. You should certainly apply if your grades are above average — perfection is unnecessary.
Personally, from the conversations I had with many people with scholarships, the decision to apply was rather pragmatic. They didn't necessarily need a strong inherent motivation to apply for a particular scholarship — they chose to do so as it served their own interests best, whether financially or career-wise.
Before you even worry if your grades are enough, you need to consider if the scholarship (and the eventual job) is a good fit for you. Ask yourself if you have the right aptitude for the role, and if your skills and interests match its requirements.
Yes, they should still apply. Perfect grades are not a prerequisite, and in practice they are rarely the sole deciding factor. What matters more is whether you can demonstrate strong thinking ability, intellectual curiosity, and alignment with GIC's long-term, public-mission mindset.
It is important that you are really keen on STEM — that is usually the first thing they will check. Perfect grades may not be necessary but you definitely need good grades to have them take you seriously, especially for your maths and sciences.
Yes, grades are not everything, although they are still used as an initial proxy. If you don't apply, you'd never know. Your career path and interests may change during or after university, and you will be faced with lots of uncertainty — but do what you feel is best for you at that point in time.
Yes, if it aligns with their dreams and aspirations.
These awarding bodies are primarily concerned with an applicant's potential. From their perspective, they are looking for candidates that have the ability to give the best return on their investment. Perfect grades are a strong indicator but they are not everything — character, resilience, and drive matter just as much, if not more.
I'm proof that people with underwhelming academics and unusual hobbies still get government scholarships — I had E, S and U grades in at least three A-Level subjects. This scholarship supports careers in film, games, animation and journalism, so the committee is happy to see a CV full of unusual activities. What they want is demonstrable evidence of your career interest — an action-backed passion for the field, not the internet-glamorised version of it.
Yes, you should. Depending on the board, certain needs can be quite specific and are not reflected in grades at all.
Think of it as job hunting. Employers are not looking for perfect grades, but for skills that complement their needs. It is better to try and fail than to never try at all.
Think about the kind of career you want to pursue and where you want to live. If you want to move to a different country, taking up a government scholarship in that country is usually the best route in.
Still apply — in my case there was no interview at all.
Just try applying first. Even when I did not get a response, the process of applying helped me understand myself, my values, and my dreams for the future. You can work out at the interview stage whether the organisation is a good fit, and there is time to consider before you accept an offer.
What types of experiences should students engage in 2–3 years before applying?
Quality over quantity — every time. The scholars who said this most clearly were also the ones who got results. Pursue things you genuinely care about, because in the interview you'll be asked to own them. Volunteering and leadership matter, but deep engagement in one area tends to stand out more than a long list of surface-level activities. Don't treat your CV as a checklist.
Having volunteering experiences helps, as it can demonstrate to organisations — especially those in the public service — that you have a heart to serve. Leadership experiences also play a huge part, as they are looking for people who can take the lead and step up when necessary.
It is probably important to have extracurriculars that display interest and aptitude in economics and its applications in analysing public policies. A mathematical background might help as well, since the job requires quantitative techniques. Leadership experiences would be useful too.
I think showing an interest in that general field may be helpful — but I also learned that just because you interned at a place does not necessarily mean you will get that scholarship. Genuine interest matters far more than a strategically timed internship.
Definitely have extracurriculars that you are TRULY passionate about, not those you think will impress interviewers. It ultimately shows in the end if you've been doing something solely for the portfolio. What stands out is what is niche and special, because you really own the experience.
Do things you care about. If you like science it's natural that you've done research. If you like international relations you would obviously have tried MUN. Quality over quantity, to be fair — and there's always an X factor. Don't copy others, just follow your curiosity.
Applying for the SAF Young Leaders' Award, studying H3 Geopolitics, and interning at MINDEF — preferably in the Defence Policy Group — would all help.
I don't think there's any specific type of experience a student should be striving for — if anything they should diversify the kinds of experiences they have in order to identify their own interests and motivations, and really learn about themselves.
It is important to be engaged in activities that demonstrate your interest and aptitude in foreign affairs and diplomacy. While there isn't a fixed list, it helps if your activities have direct relevance to the eventual job, as they help to tell a coherent story about who you are and where you want to go.
Students should focus on depth, intentionality, and learning — rather than accumulating credentials. The most valuable experiences are those that help students understand how they think, work with others, and grow over time. Academically rigorous coursework that builds analytical skills matters more than most extracurriculars.
For engineering-related scholarships, definitely have some STEM-related items. Going for YDSP or other DSTA/DSO events is a bigger plus. In general, it's just important that you show you are capable of getting more than just good grades — whether you're a good athlete or committed to service.
Internships are not needed, although they'll definitely help with showing vested interests. Best is to see whether your school has job-shadowing links with certain organisations. Volunteering is a must, and varied extracurriculars outside academia are important. Schools often have modules specifically designed for this.
Generally, I don't think scholarship boards are looking for a specific checklist. Diversity is highly valued. My advice would be to do what interests you — this way, even if you do not end up taking a scholarship, you would still walk away with an enjoyable experience.
Rather than focusing on racking up a large number of activities, pursue activities that you genuinely resonate with. Ultimately, these experiences will benefit your application only if they fit into the personal narrative you are trying to make. Authenticity beats volume every time.
I wrote mainly about the one newsroom internship I had, and the years I spent building a fan-community website. I also knew scholars who had made a string of impressive short films before applying. There is no expected formula for how much you minimally need on your CV — you need a strong, coherent narrative about why you want a media career. I had zero volunteering, no leadership positions in JC, and the same CCA for six years.
Having some sort of real-world internship experience helped me, at least. It gives you something concrete to talk about.
You need evidence to prove your character, and that comes from showing experiences. I recommend joining something you are passionate about and dedicating yourself to it. The character will show with time.
Volunteering is fairly general. You may want to build skills other candidates don't have — specific engineering knowledge in your field, finance or consulting exposure, or language ability.
Have experiences that are reflected upon. A few experiences well processed are better than a load of experiences that are a scattershot and not well understood.
Extracurriculars will definitely strengthen your application, but think about how. Are you demonstrating leadership in this area? Is the experience relevant to your course of study, or to the future work of the organisation? Being focused is more important than having a lot of unconnected experiences.
How should students decide which scholarships to apply for?
The bond is the frame. Scholars consistently advise focusing on organisations you'd genuinely want to work for — because the interview will expose shallow motivation quickly, and because you'll actually be bonded to them. Scholars split on breadth: some cap it at three, others apply widely and rank later. Unbonded university scholarships are the exception worth taking early. Be ready to explain your rankings and your trade-offs when the panel asks.
As most scholarships involve a bond, it would be good to consider not just your studies, but also your career goals and whether you can see yourself working for that organisation for the first 4–6 years after university. Prioritise those where you feel most excited about the work.
Focus on the ones with careers you are genuinely interested in and would accept if given a scholarship — and ones that are closely aligned with your extracurriculars and talents.
Applying to too many is not necessarily a good sign. I was asked about where else I had applied and my rankings in some interviews, so be prepared to field questions like these. Prioritise places you can actually see yourself working in.
I would apply for the ones I am most likely to get based on my past experience, and places I can actually see myself in. It's ideal to want to be in an organisation where you actually do what you like and see meaningful impact. All these motivations will come up in the interview.
Up to you. I know people who succeeded with a targeted strategy — only security ministries — and people who sprayed and prayed. There is no right answer. Find mentors who know your specific situation and enjoy the process. It is self-discovery. Prioritise the ones you think you'd be a good fit for.
If you're going to apply for a government scholarship for the money, just don't. A long-term career in the public service does not pay badly, but it does not pay tremendously either — by prudent design. Focus on what you're most passionate about. Do you want to be a specialist or a generalist? That should be the fulcrum of your decision.
I think it's best to apply to a few. What you apply for should really boil down to your intrinsic interests and motivations — not prestige or what your friends are doing.
By attending scholarship fairs and getting involved in extracurriculars, you should get a sense of which areas of government you are more interested in. When you apply for a scholarship, you are also applying for a job — so interest has to play a big factor in your decision.
Apply selectively and strategically. A strong, focused application is almost always more effective than many generic ones. Focus on a select few scholarships where there is clear alignment between your interests and values and the scholarship's mission and bond obligations.
I researched a lot at once and was ready to apply for all of it, but there was only one I really wanted. Once I got the one I wanted, the rest didn't matter. Define your priority list — be honest about which one you'd actually take if offered.
Focus on a select few. Prioritise by asking: which one have I the best chance in helping deliver its mission, and which aligns most with my personal objectives? They can be in different fields as long as you can articulate the connection.
Understand your interests and what the different scholarships entail — because you would be dedicating a substantial period of time to this job. Like any job, pick one that aligns with your career aspirations.
I do believe in quality over quantity — but that said, it is always good to have multiple options. To narrow down, you need to be clear on why you are applying for a scholarship in the first place. Different scholarships have different benefits, obligations, and career trajectories.
Honestly, if you want to make films or design video games, I'd bet you're not really into the other kinds of scholarships. So there aren't really competing applications to be weighing up here.
Apply for all of them. But be sure which one it is you actually want, and be genuine in your applications.
Apply to no more than three, in my opinion. You need to be clear on who and why. If you reuse a personal statement for an organisation, you probably didn't care that much about it anyway.
Apply to as many as possible. Schedule the lowest-priority one first and the highest-priority one last, so you are at your sharpest by the time it matters.
Something they agree with and that is a good fit for them. This can be arrived at better through reflection.
Tailor the application to the organisation, and pace yourself. I would personally prioritise the internal school scholarships first, as those do not come with bonds and allow you more freedom in the future. Then prioritise organisations where you can see yourself working, or whose values align with yours.
What are the key points to highlight in a personal or academic statement?
The statement is not a CV in paragraph form. Write about one or two experiences in depth — show what you did, what you learned, and why it points toward this scholarship. The goal is to make the interviewer curious about you, not impressed by your list. Every point should tie back to why you and this particular organisation are a fit.
Highlight your strengths and how you are a good fit for their organisation.
Relevant experiences — both academic and non-academic, such as leadership — and motivations for applying. During the essay stage, also show a strong understanding of economic concepts and policies: the economic intuition behind them, their impact on the Singapore economy, and the rationale for policy decisions.
How your personal interests and experiences are aligned to the scholarship provider, and how you can contribute with your degree.
Your interests and the topics you could talk about for hours. Usually personal statements stem from a general question, but in your answer you can twist it toward what you are truly passionate about. Bring in different perspectives and niche topics that other candidates would not think of.
It varies from application to application. Iterate, iterate, iterate — and get a mentor to check for you. If you reach out, most people are very helpful.
Your motivation is extremely important to highlight. Link it to how the organisation can empower you to achieve it, and to the alignment between your goals and theirs. Your motivation should also be substantiated with academic evidence, such as readings or research projects.
We are conditioned by our circumstances. A critical aspect of growing up is understanding how we turned out the way we did — your story of self, your values, and how they connect to why you want to serve. That's what the panel is looking for.
The statement should not be a simple list of your experiences and achievements — it should demonstrate their applicability and relevance to the real roles of the job. Always think about how you can frame your statement to demonstrate your suitability for the scholarship.
Explain what genuinely draws you to investing, economics, or public-sector asset management — this should feel specific and personal, not generic. Use one or two experiences to show how you analyse problems and make decisions under uncertainty. Show how you think, not just what you've done.
They are very interested in extracurricular activities that show your passion in STEM. For me, it was highlighting personal engineering projects I had done in my spare time.
Your past relevant experiences, your current circumstances, what you're working on, your future goals and vision, and how the scholarship links with these goals and vision.
A personal or academic statement is a chance for the panel to get to know you, so be yourself. There will usually be guiding questions so it would be good to answer them. Share your life experiences and why you are interested.
It might feel disingenuous but the best approach is to package your experiences, values, and accomplishments in a concise piece of writing. You want to convince the readers that you are exactly what they are looking for — by using vivid, specific examples rather than abstract claims about your character.
Ooze with enthusiasm, and make your passion for the field unquestionably clear. Be surgical about why you want this career — plenty of people say film is cool and they want to be the next big director, but only those who can pinpoint exactly what excites them have the drive to lead in it. And do not exaggerate: in the interview you will get asked deep questions about what you actually did in your passion projects, so you will be caught out very quickly.
Everything must come back to how it benefits Singapore.
Personality — write honestly, because readers can tell when you are trying to be something you are not. Show that you know the industry by making relevant references.
What you have done so far to show you have a passion for the career the scholarship provider is hiring for.
Anything that highlights what a particular experience means to you personally.
Your passion for learning and your alignment with the goals of the organisation. A personal statement is not the same as a CV — try not to treat it as a laundry list of achievements, but write about what you value in education or work. A compelling, cohesive story about how your achievements align with your future course of study is what you want.
What's the most effective way to prepare for scholarship interviews?
Three things recur: know the organisation deeply (beyond the website — reach out to employees on LinkedIn), know yourself (your motivations, your story, your trade-offs), and practice out loud. Mock interviews with people who'll push back are more valuable than reading question banks. For most scholarships, every question traces back to one of three: why us, why you, and what do you know about our domain.
The best way to prepare is to talk to people in the organisation. As they already have working experience, they can provide a glimpse of what it's like to work there. I would definitely recommend creating a personal "cheat sheet" and doing mock interviews — they really helped me.
Refresh your memory of A-Level Economics content, read up on current affairs (both domestic and global), and be familiar with the work of the Economist Service. Understanding how Singapore's policy environment works is essential — the interviewers will probe this.
Speaking to people who are working in the organisation gives you an idea of the work culture and general goals, which will help you understand how you may fit into that environment. I personally didn't use question banks or mock interviews — I found that reflecting deeply on my own motivations was more useful.
I did a lot of research and reflection, along with mind-mapping, into questions that are relevant. I classified questions into three buckets: leadership, domestic affairs, and current affairs. Mind-mapping ensured I had knowledge about each area. All questions at the interview are some variation of these three.
Brainstorm possible questions, prepare answers, and iterate again. Do mock interviews with seniors or family members. All questions are iterations of: 1) Why do you want us? 2) Why should we want you? 3) Domain-specific knowledge. Build a cheat sheet. Do 5–10 mock rounds.
Tap into your school networks for advice and mock interviews. A lot of information cannot be found online, and some slices of it can make or break your interview. All scholarships look for integrative ability — how you synthesise current affairs, their impacts on agencies, and the resulting trade-offs that must be balanced. The level of abstraction depends on the scholarship: for DMS it is the nexus of national security; for Whole-of-Government scholarships it is the nation as a whole.
Always best to look them up online and get into contact with people who work at the organisation — their personal insights can be very beneficial in your interview. I consolidated everything about myself and created a personal "cheat sheet" which I found extremely helpful.
"Soft" knowledge means training yourself to develop opinions and insights on world events and current affairs — going beyond merely being informed. Read up on geopolitical hotspots and form views on them. "Hard" knowledge means knowing MFA's priorities, Singapore's foreign policy principles, and being able to discuss them specifically.
Go beyond surface-level facts. Understand GIC's role as a global sovereign wealth fund and its long-term mandate. Read recent speeches, annual reports, and coverage of how GIC has navigated different market cycles. Be able to connect Singapore's broader economic context to GIC's investment philosophy.
Research all three organisations — DSTA, DSO, CSIT — and think about which department in each you would like to work in and why. Find out about things those departments have been working on so you can show you've done your homework. A question you prepare in advance that you'd like to ask them can go a long way.
The organisational website and relevant social media platforms give you a broad understanding. For depth, reach out to people on LinkedIn — not just scholars — and find out what the daily job actually entails. I'd recommend a personal cheatsheet: know yourself as well as you know the organisation.
Understand yourself and why you are applying. Look up what the different agencies do. Ask past or present scholars about their experience. Knowing what you are signing up for — and being able to articulate it — shows the panel you've thought this through.
Researching the organisation is crucial: look for their mission and values, specific areas they specialise in that you align with, and what they are looking for in their scholars. Beyond that, LinkedIn makes reaching out to existing scholars fairly accessible — most are quite happy to speak to applicants.
Read the news. Read Singapore's financial roadmaps. Read the autobiographies of our past leaders.
Again, treat it as a job interview. Make sure you know the organisation's values — usually on their website. They should already align with yours, which is why you are applying, so embody them in the interview. The civil service values integrity: if the interviewer asks something you do not know, be honest and say "I am not sure, but…"
Think about your achievements in the past and be able to explain them in as many ways as possible, without a script.
Reflection. Always ask yourself why you are doing what you are doing. Be honest when you don't know, and be humble enough to really listen to others.
What was your experience during the final or panel interview?
Most final panels run 25–40 minutes with 3–12 interviewers. The environment can feel intimidating — senior leadership, formal settings — but scholars consistently describe the experience as more conversational than expected once it begins. Treat it as a discussion, not an interrogation. If you're being asked hard questions, that often signals the panel is seriously considering you.
There were three interviewers. Although the environment seemed tense, once I got to talking with the interviewers everything felt much calmer. It helps to think of it as a conversation, rather than an interview. My session lasted about 30 minutes, and I was asked a wide range of questions.
5 interviewers, about a 30-minute session. There were 1–2 questions about motivations for applying, but most questions were academic — surrounding economic concepts, their applications in the real world, economic policy recommendations, and current affairs. Several questions were based on things I had mentioned in my application.
It was quite formal — we were in a boardroom with about 4–5 directors and someone from HR taking minutes. The session lasted about 30 minutes, where I was given some hypothetical questions and asked to take a stand on certain contentious issues.
For the PSC interview board, there were 12 interviewers and it was quite terrifying to be the only applicant in the room. It lasted 35 minutes. The PSC interview feels like a stream of consciousness — they pick up on interesting things you say and probe deeper. Have lots of anecdotes ready, and try to be natural rather than rehearsed.
Mine was a Zoom panel, about 4–5 interviewers for 30 minutes. One of the questions they asked was a PSC essay question — so the interview and application are connected. Be prepared for that.
There was a panel interview at DTTB, chaired by a Deputy Secretary (Administration). The session lasted about 30 minutes and focused on current affairs and the future of defence policy.
The environment was honestly not that stressful — my interviewers were very nice to me, although I suspect this depends on the organisation and service. There were about 8–10 people, but only two individuals questioned me. The rest were observing. They asked me about my motivations, experiences, and why I wanted to enter the Teaching Service specifically.
I had 2 panel interviews with 3 interviewers each, lasting around 30 minutes. The questions covered personal motivations, current affairs, and suitability for the job. The atmosphere was relaxed and the discussion was relatively free-flowing — though you have some control over this too, depending on how naturally you guide the conversation.
The environment was professional but not intimidating. Interviewers were engaged and attentive, and the discussion felt more conversational than adversarial. Multiple interviewers were on the panel, each focusing on different aspects — motivation, thinking process, and values. The session lasted roughly 30–45 minutes.
Mine was during COVID, so it was a Zoom call with the CE of DSTA and the CEO of DSO, along with the head of HR. It was about 30 minutes, but they were super nice — not intimidating at all. They asked questions about my interest in DSTA's work and projects I had worked on.
The environment can feel tense at first since you're being interviewed by senior leadership — but it's important to remember that they see potential in you, and at the end of the day, they are humans too. The interview should feel like a discussion about your future, not a pressure-cooker test.
The panel was friendly. You can usually expect the senior executives of the agency to be present. The length of the session depends on what you share — follow-up questions can extend it significantly. You may not be able to answer every question perfectly, and that's okay — they are assessing how you think, not just what you know.
The environment of the panel interview is certainly intimidating — you will feel like you are under the microscope, being bombarded with difficult questions. But a senior once told me: if the questions feel difficult, it is likely a sign that the panel is seriously considering you and wants to see how you handle pressure. That reframe helped me a lot.
It was really chill, honestly. There was one person representing IMDA, one representing a media company in Singapore, and one HR person. They were all very nice and it wasn't stressful at all. There were no trick questions to trip me up on hard or controversial topics, as I am aware sometimes happens with PSC interviews — they really just wanted to know about the experiences and lessons that compelled me to pursue this career.
Strict, but less technical and more personality-based. Four or five interviewers, around 30 minutes. Mostly personality questions — what you like, why you want this.
It can be daunting having about five people staring at you, but everyone was all smiles. I can't remember how long it was, but it felt just right.
For MEXT, the panel was the JUGAS president, the JCC head, and staff from the Japanese embassy — questions came in Mandarin, English and Japanese, and they tested my understanding of Japan. For LTA it was the CEO, the head of engineering, and HR, and they asked what kind of career I wanted to build.
There was no interview stage for this one.