KJ

A wonderful thoughtful provocative article. Well written!

In SIngapore, it is true you are always branded and there is classification from the day that you are born. If you are not smart, rich or good looking, I am afriad that life will be very tough.

If you are poor go to KK and give birth with others, if you are rich go to Mt E and give birth alone privately.

If you are poor as a kid, you play with hand me down, if you are rich you get to buy Playstation or Toys R Us.

If you are rich, you get to tuition till you achieve meritcoracy, if you are poor too bad you are on your own.

If you are smart, go to Express stream to achieve your dream, if you are not go to Normal Technical stream and prepare for NS.

If you are rich, go to NZ or US for holiday, if you are poor go to JB or maybe Batam.

If you are smart, can go to uni for further study, if not you go to ITE or NS straightaway.

If you are smarter can get a scholarship and study at Harvard or Cambridge, if not you study at local unis or worse poly.

If you are a graduate, you get a list of potential employers waiting, if you are not you scout for the leftover.

If you make it in life, you get to stay in a condo/landed housing, if not you stay in HDB.

If you are educated you get to emigrate if not you stay behind.

If you have cash you buy BMW or Volvo, if not you go take MRT or SMRT (bus).

If you retire well, you go for holiday and play golf, if you are not you clean tiolets and work in foodcourt till you die.

Perhaps only India’s caste system can match our own classification back home.

reminds of a girl from ACJC. Insightful.

Keep it up!

Gilbert should weigh his words carefully. Isn’t he generalizing too much?

Many who were born in KK have achieved success.

Many too who were born in low income families have improved their status in life.

There are also anumber of PSC scholarship holders who are studying in local Unis because our local Us are just as good if not better.

In addition there are many children who have expensive handphones and toys including play station, whose families can ill afford them.

There are many poor families too who save and scrimp to provide tuition for their children.

Perhaps the greatest contribution the article has made is the point that education makes a difference.

#3 – how many?

the old quirk has done social and genetic engineering
notice all the super schools are within the million dollar belt of the bukit timah zone
whether this is retribution his policies have backfired as most highly educated couples chose not to have children as they do not wish them to bear the brunt of streaming and fighting all their lifes for not quality of life
we are all working for the same mafia to upkeep his lifestyle and bundling idiots
who are paid millions but offer no solutions especially idiots who let mas selamat free and talk no sense elites who would not even secure a good job in the real commercial world with their command of english

Hi #2) good article,

Wah! got 2 thumb’s up already! That makes 3 boys going after the same girl in ACJC? Must be very chio man.

wow! Very well written. I grew up in the 80’s so i know what you mean. With primary schools having 8 extended and mono streams, your fate was already decided when you were 9.

I am from a single parent family and I and many, many friends I know have graduated from university “despite the odds”. I too find the Old Man’s views on eugenics offensive, but to say that being born into a poor family disadvantages you in the education system is a bit too simplistic.

Many of us were born into disadvantaged circumstances, and our success today stands against LKY’s erroneous beliefs.

We don’t have to be gahmen scholars to be branded “successful”. Being a graduate doesn’t make us successful; not having a degree doesn’t make us failures.

“We don’t have to be gahmen scholars to be branded “successful”.”

So what do you think of those gahmen scholars at the apex of national decision making. Do you think the policies being churned out will likely have the key elements to perpetuate this self selection of the same kind to the exclusion of those deemed equally successful by you but may not fall within their so-called definition of ‘talent’.

Are you a gahmen scholar? Don’t understand your question :)

out of 100 rich kids, maybe 95 will get a fighting chance to go to local uni.

Out of 100 poor kids, many parents will scrimp and save to help their kids have enough tuition at CC’s to have a fighting chance (while rich kids have private one to one tuition) and maybe 5 will get a fighting chance to go to local uni.

of course this is anecdotal since I am not from PAP and cannot afford any true investigation :)

“Are you a gahmen scholar? Don’t understand your question ”

Well, how can I say. Are you a gahmen scholar also ??? Do you need one In order to understand my question ? Or do you need someone who is not a gahmen scholar to understand my question ?

No need to get your spleen out. I’m just a simple-minded, local U non-gahmen scholar. I’m asking you to clarify your question because your question is very cheem.

Let me make it not so cheem.

As you have rightly said. We don’t have to be gahmen scholars to be branded “successful”. Being a graduate doesn’t make us successful; not having a degree doesn’t make us failures.

My question. Given that our gahmen’s top echelon is staffed by people of such scholarly material, do you think there is an likely effect of having policies which will draw and benefit people more of their own scholarly kind, thus conveying this notion of “success” or having made it at this national level.

While at the same time this notion will in turn permeate throughout society. While you and me may feel that success may come in a lot of forms (some even simple and unconventional), what we do receive is a different “national message’ being sent out to the general populace.

Nice article, but feel kind of SAD after reading about it (maybe realize what truly is singapore made of)

Gilbert, good sum up !

Sobri, not many are as what you described. In percentage term, maybe less than 10%?

there are many young malays couples
who are doing the thinkin right now
kudos to them
some of them upon finishng their day job
will worked partime delivery for kfc or macdonalds
using their owned bikes
1 malay couple even faired further
the wife will make nasi lemaks @ home
the hubby will start hawking his wife nasi lemak
which is real tasty for the price of $2,50/packet
till the midnight hour
he will ply to all the kopitiams
peep beep here
peep beep there
many hungry loyal kopitiam eaters
will wait for him
by midnight witching hours
he would have sold out

Uniquely Singapore, 1st class world citizens living a 3rd world country condition. But even in a 3rd world country, one need not worry about paying for a tiny expensive pigion ass hole@90 sqm, valuation@ $350 000 in asia.

Why do people hate government scholars so much? It has nothing at all to do with this article. You scholars so much but if you’re offered one you would jump at the chance.

I believe there is meritocracy in Singapore. If you perform well academically, you go to top schools, and get these scholarships. If you perform well at work, you get promoted, regardless of race or background. That so much is true. RI, RJC, is no where as socially exclusive as Harrow or Winchester.

What the problem is is that background counts. This is not about having money to buy tuition or enrichment classes – the very best students don’t even need it (trust me, i studied with them). This is about cultural capital. I would argue that how well a child does at school is intimately related to parental expectations, aspirations, and cultural guidance. If your parents expect you go to go university, you’re more likely to than someone whose parents don’t, and they’re more likely to expect you to go to university if they have been themselves. If your parents are well educated, they are more likely to be able tell the you what books to read, debate current affairs with you at the dinner table, broaden your intellectual horizons. By contrast, poor Mrs Lim struggles with even children’s books.

So the problem isn’t such a crude one as affording tuition or enrichment classes, but about parental ability to develop a child intellectually. I do not argue that people who are not well educated make lousy parents nor do I argue that well educated people make better parents – there are other factors at play. But when it comes to a child’s academic development, it helps to have that cultural capital at home. This is nothing to do with the wealth of the parents, although well-educated people tend to be better off, obviously.

There are no easy solutions for this – this occurs in every society, not just in Singapore. But what we can do is encourage aspirations. Send young secondary school children on university open day visits to show them that it can be done. We can focus on getting the basics right, especially in the English language. This is especially crucial as children from non-English speaking homes have a grave disadvantage in mainstream education if they cannot master the language. Have better qualified teachers at lower primary level. All those teachers who teach R-rer is for Restoran have to go – and I had quite a number of those in Pri school an d that wasn’t too long ago. Subsidise kindergarten education so children from poor families can enjoy the same quality early childhood education as those from wealthier ones.

We can’t eliminate the cultural advantage but we can do our best to level the playing field elsewhere.

who is simwong hoo?
was he a great academic student?
today?
he is still a multi millionaire
not one time
but many TIMES

There is no ‘them’ and ‘us’ there is only ‘US’!

Old man Lee has defined success very narrowly. For people from different backgrounds, standards of living – success can be in many forms and many things. Success is not about going to uni, getting a good degree and earning lots of money. This is simplistic thinking and it perpetuates materialism.

He reminds me of Hitler and the latter’s obsession about having a pure Aryan race. LKY’s views are discriminatory, unfair and self-centred – not befitting of the elderly statesman he likes to proclaim himself.

Sure we can sit here and argue about cultural capital vs plain old wealth but it’s really just semantics when we are talking about “resources” parents have.

You said: “This is especially crucial as children from non-English speaking homes have a grave disadvantage in mainstream education if they cannot master the language. Have better qualified teachers at lower primary level. All those teachers who teach R-rer is for Restoran have to go – and I had quite a number of those in Pri school an d that wasn’t too long ago. Subsidise kindergarten education so children from poor families can enjoy the same quality early childhood education as those from wealthier ones.”

The reasons are obvious why this is not so. Look at the reasonings given for why some public policies are so. A certain so and so said that while Singapore is quite strict about censorship here, people are free to go overseas to absorb whatever they want. And censorship for cable TV is looser than free-to-air presumably (and theatre vs the movies) because those who can afford cable/ theatre have better abilities in terms of judgment? Why are people divided up like that?

All our problems will disappear like lemon drops. If only parents themselves (I need to be clear here, as teachers really cannot be expected to fulfill that all important role) can successfully shift the focus from the current NARROW definition of personal and organizational success.

I believe currently, most students aspire to scholarships only because they believe (rightly or wrongly) it offers them a tried and tested yellow brick road to realize their dreams. You can’t really blame them from buying into pathway, not if the rules of the game are structured in such a way whereby the ordered life is typically equated with the successful or good life; it’s only natural for them to reach for that cup.

It may be wiser to share with kids; there may be more than one way to win in life; that of course means they have to be FIRST weaned away from the allure of the yellow brick road; they need to feel comfortable with the whole idea of swinging it without safety nets i.e dropping out of university to work on some great invention in their garage etc / giving up the safety of stable job to wing it in the business world.

From my personal experience; no one in his right mind would ever consider going the full distance without safety nets; that’s just crazy; most of the time; they’re just pushed to that quadrant by circumstances.

When I was in university for example; everyone told me not to mix with troublemakers; they told me if I got mixed up with them, I’ve lose my way and end up like them.

I didnt need alot of prompting to stick to the yellow brick road; as these troublemakers had it real tough; they had their scholarships revoked; they had to hold down 2 shift jobs and still juggle their school work, pay off loans and most of them seem to staying in crime infested places where rents were usually cheap bc the landlord had probably been shot. They were constantly playing hide and seek with students services bc they were late in paying off their exorbitant fees. No life at all.

it was not easy to break into their clique; like a vampire thing; they kept to their own and never mixed with the other students, like a brotherhood thingy – listened only to one man, darkness, that’s how hunting man works best, they organize themselves like monkeys. everyman knows his pecking order. I got to know them bc I regularly bought them cigarettes and beer. I saw it all, how they lived; what made them tick – when I came out to join the work force; they just came in from the sun and ran circles around everyone of us. We didn’t even stand a chance. It was a massacre. A massacre. I tell you all.

How the hell do you beat that sort of man who swims out to sea against you; 9 out of 10 he’s going to whip you; bc you just know when you’re racing against him; he’s going to put everything he has got into just crossing that mythical finishing line and he’s not even going to bother like yourself to save any back for the return trip –like I said, he’s got nothing to lose and everything to gain.

SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)

Very Interesting, sd.

Since the time I was in secondary 2, I had decided that my life would be different from that prescribed by the scribes. There were too many interests for me to pursue and sitting behind an office desk with a handsome income was the last thing on my mind. So off I went to see the world. For the next seven years after I completed my O levels, that was what I did.

After seven years, I decided I wanted to try my hand at something else in the fashion industry. I did that for the next 13 years, even setting up 2 shops running my own business. I figured I had up to the age of 35 years to do the things I like to do before I settled into something more mundane and predictable, a salaried job.

So, at age 35, I gave up my business and found a job working behind a desk, the same job I am now doing. Along the way, from age 35, I upgraded myself and took some courses to enhance my salary which is now quite comfortable.

The point is, whether one follows the yellow brick road or not, the trick is to have a plan, a worklife plan, that draws out exactly what you intend to achieve at which point in your life. Perhaps not achieving your goals is not that bad either as long as you have done the things you like to do. Yah, it’s easier said than done but hey, it worked for me and I did not have to follow the yellow brick road.

I can stake my claim to having lived out a fruitful life, managing to do the things I wanted to do and am now satisfied to let life roll on. Of course there is always the danger than something might just hit you all of a sudden and your boat will be all at sea once again. We reduce this by the contingency plans we put in place.

I therefore do not subscribe to the logic that we must all take the same bus to CBD every morning and walk from left to right at 7am in the morning and right to left at 5pm when we knock off from work. I have walked the opposite direction and survived, heavy traffic or not.

Sylvia,

That reminds me of a quote I heard once on the internet, which I also agree.

It went something like “The local media speaks to the heartlanders, and the ones who are on the verge of being self-sufficient but not there yet. The press and the gahmen doesn’t need to preach to the heavily travelled, well-connected to the world Singaporean, because they know it is a lost cause and they are the liberal set any governing party can throw to the fringe”.

How true is this? I think at least 70%

And,

I think if one reads Foreign Policy (just an example) in the morning, he or she is clearly not the sort that the national press would need to waste any time trying to convert.

In relation to this article, yes, resources and awareness of where to get these is very important. It is a bootstrap if you are less well-off, to have information on issues affecting the world around you.

Information has always placed people on top of the game, as is the skill to process and use it.

LKY does make many sweeping and flawed statements, but I agree with #18) nickname that cultural capital is greater in well-educated families. Even if we bluster here about how people have succeeded despite disadvantaged backgrounds, what choice we would make ourselves for our children?

27,

You and I know what choice we would make. I would never have kids unless I am able to guarantee that they have a headstart in life.

And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Gemami,

How are you man?

My point is sometimes when we look at so called “privileged” folk who seem to be having it their way; its natural for us to be envious and even feel as if the future holds out perdition rather than salvantion.

As judging from appearances; they seem to be having a head start in life; by getting into the hallowed ground of RI, making the officer grade in a top notch regiment during NS or even getting a seat in an ivy league college; that just means a big fat nothing to me these days. Nothing – may well be even be a curse.

Life will always be a marathon.

But if you think for even one moment, you need all these things bfr you can even be complete to enable you to compete – then you’re just going to buy into a whole lot of grief and shattered dreams.

Bc all those things are simply NOT enough to get you there; they’re maybe 10% that’s all it is; and in some cases, you may not even need it; its better to be degreeless and have a chip on your shoulder the size of Alaska.

As for me; I’ve had enough of the yellow brick road; from what I’ve seen so far, it just seems to be only going around in big and small circles; I am stepping off; I just wanna go to Russia now and make my own way.

I should have listen to Darkness a long time ago and made that decision a long, long time ago.

He once told me; in life you have to do something that you believe; you CANNOT possibly succeed in even if you have 10 lifetimes. Or better still is so risky that you may even lose your sweetheart and everything you hold so dear in this word; and just commit yourself to it. When there is so much at stake. And there is no turning back. You CANNOT fail. You simply cannot.

SD

SD

Peace everyone, welcome to 6.5 million popuation target will make sure every singaporeans will work 24 hrs a day to raise a family as tom, dick, henry, pussy, cindy and samantha will be fighting for any dirty job avaliable. Good luck everyone, peace!!!

28) Loyola

Don’t bring them out to suffer in this world? haha,ok,it is not that drastic, but i agree with you. i will also not have kids unless i can provide for them with a comfortable environment to live it, to start with

If one’s smart and driven, one would “make it” with or without a degree. The rest of us who are not so smart or driven but at least have a degree to fall back on hopefully won’t have to do menial work and still get a decent life. I see the paper qualification as a safety net for those who are happy to not have great ambition, not work too hard and still be quite comfortable…

And to gemami, I presume you were you able to just take off for years without having to contribute to your family? That’s a luxury in itself if you realise that those kids from lower-income families may not even have the luxury to do or even dream of doing such a thing…

Singapore’s education system is one of the best in the world. no poor student will be denied a proper education as long as he is hardworking and wants to study.

If someone’s intelligence is limited, he can only do the job that he is capable of. Not all jobs are equal. That’s why Singapore promotes meritocracy – it’s a fair system.

It is a scientific fact that the types of genes will affect the next generation. Whether that new generation will be successful or not, is however, dependent on the environment and circumstances of that time. Mr. Lee is simply suggesting that couples be more selective for the benefit of their future generations.

When I read the Lim’s household story, I wonder why did they have so many children?

Hello partisan, What do you mean by “intelligence is limited”? Is it IQ or some school tests?

let tis Forum writer help reveal our wonderful myth of meritocracy:

Nov 17, 2006
Meritocracy has nothing that makes it ‘fairer’ or ‘better’ than other systems of organising society

I refer to Chua Mui Hoong’s article ‘How meritocracy can breed intellectual elitism’ (ST, Nov 10 06).

Ms Chua argues that the ‘uncomfortable subtext of meritocracy’ is basically that if one is born into a humble family and doesn’t do well as an adult one has only one’s own sloth or ineptitude to blame – there is no shirking, for you are thoroughly and wilfully responsible for your own failure.

An extension of that fact is that no one – not the government, not those who by virtue of ‘merit’ have risen to the top – is obligated in the least to extend a helping hand to leaven your wretched state.

I would like to add to the argument by pointing out that we instinctively feel uncomfortable at the proposition that ‘meritocracy’ (good, fair and progressive) and ‘elitism’ (bad, unjust and callous), are actually natural bedfellows for a simple reason – we have forgotten, or perhaps we never knew, the precise meaning and etymology of those words. What we have today in Singapore is simply and logically an elite of merit.

When I first read Nicholas Lemann’s ‘The Big Test: the Secret History of the American Meritocracy’ I was stunned and aghast – bred as I was on the staple Singaporean fodder of ‘meritocracy is good’ – to find out that the person who coined the word originally meant it to be used pejoratively.

Lemann points out in his fascinating book that Michael Young, a member of the Labour Party in Britain in the 1940s, in arguing for the continued survival of social justice as a cause in society, felt that he had to give a name to this emerging ‘rule by the cleverest people’ that he was criticising.

He first thought of ‘aristocracy’, which in Greek meant ‘rule by the best’, but ‘aristocracy’ was viewed with distaste all over the Western world in the 1950s as the opposite, i.e. rule by inheritors of wealth.

Young’s solution was to change the first syllable from Greek to Latin, and voila, ‘meritocracy’ was born. This salutary-sounding development would, in his argument, devastate the cause of social justice (pursued through the form of government social support policy for the needy, philanthropy etc.) because “highly intelligent people intermarry and pass on their brainy genes to their offspring, so that a meritocratic upper class begins to look like an aristocracy, more deserving of its place but also more arrogant than the previous elite based on inherited wealth’. Does this sound familiar to us?

Lest we comfort ourselves with the argument of ‘but these are the most capable, talented, best people and we should reward them accordingly, they should run the country etc.’, it should also be pointed out that talent, capability and any other superlatives are not objective references. They are value-laden.

Our officially sanctioned measures of talent and capability effectively define for us as a society what these things are – and just who creates and implements these measures to pick out certain differentiating factors in people and then evaluates their showing should give us pause.

For instance, in the case of university admissions (or scholarship application processes in our local context), proof of extracurricular activities, “leadership” qualities, letters of recommendation and impeccable grades are regarded as natural, necessary and even enlightened elements of the application process.

But this system of assessment and evaluation had its genesis in the United States in the 1930s, in the elite universities of Harvard, Princeton and Yale for one main reason: to restrict the growing number of successful Jewish applicants who were in danger of alienating the moneyed Protestant classes which had traditionally constituted the bulk of the student body and subsequently fattened the universities’ coffers.

There was nothing ‘enlightened’ about it, at least not in the way we understand it.

That we unquestioningly allow our personal potential, self-worth, dreams and future to be calibrated and determined by these essentially arbitrary measures is testament to the power and ability of the incumbents in any system, not just ours, to legitimise and institutionalise their natural or acquired attributes ( e.g. speaking English in a certain way, having attended certain schools etc.)

It comes down to this: “The fortunate is seldom satisfied with the fact of being fortunate. Beyond this, he needs to know that he has a right to his good fortune.” (Max Weber)

I am not saying that the standards we have at present do not proximate the best and fairest we can do in an imperfect system. It is true that we are a small country, and we certainly do not have the autonomy and independence and luxury to decide overnight that because we value the ability to perform headstands so much we will make it the sole criterion for entry into the upper echelons of the civil service.

That would do us no good at all. But we should bear in mind that there is nothing about meritocracy that inherently makes it ‘fairer’ or ‘better’ than other systems of organising our society.

Meritocracy is not, as Ms Chua argues, ‘failing’ when elitism rears its unwanted face in the system. In fact, it is precisely because the system is working so well that the elite of merit feels so justified, so smugly superior, in their elitism. I speak from the standpoint of one of the so-called meritorious, and it is a daily struggle to remind myself of all the things I have said above.

Miss Leah Aw Zhu Jun

It is a scientific fact that the types of genes will affect the next generation. Whether that new generation will be successful or not, is however, dependent on the environment and circumstances of that time. Mr. Lee is simply suggesting that couples be more selective for the benefit of their future generations. – partisan (#34)</b.

3. Why there are more and more graduates among younger Singaporeans is because of improved access to higher education than rather Singaporeans have actually evolved into smarter population.

37) smallvice585

I aree wth you smallvice585. and furthermore, if we want to be selective and choose someone for their intelligence to benefit the next generation instead of love…then what is the point of been together?

we are humans, not lab rats for selective breeding.

I dont understand.

“Ms Chua argues that the ‘uncomfortable subtext of meritocracy’ is basically that if one is born into a humble family and doesn’t do well as an adult one has only one’s own sloth or ineptitude to blame – there is no shirking, for you are thoroughly and wilfully responsible for your own failure. ”

Then pray tell, why did she join SPH?

I mean lets say if I was an engineer and I worked in a firm producing lets say toasters that regularly electrocuted people (probably wake them up as well) and it just happens to rank 148th out of 160th in the world – how thoroughly and wilfully responsible would I have been in averting myself from a failed state as a member of the human race?

Do you understand?

SD

Let me just share with all of you; how surreal this whole discussion is.

If you take this entire thread and lets say vocalize it in ANY firm within the fortune 500 – most executives will have a field day laughing their socks off in the water cooler.

IMHO it all boils down to ONE key performance indicator; can you or can you not get the job done? It’s as simple as that.

If you cannot, then you can even be the biggest legend in your own mind, but its not going to cut any ice with the decision makers; sooner or latter they’re going to discover you’re a flake and you would simply have to go and take your song and dance somewhere else.

At the end of the day; it boils down to this ONE and SINGLE bench. The rest is really mere commentary and a waste of time.

SD

#37) smallvice585

It’s not the “intelligence gene” as you term it. it’s the whole package: economic factors, study environment, meritocracy mindset. When two graduates get together, they are likely to have higher combined income, likely to be more specific on their children’s upbringing and education, likely to have more access to resources to help their children be successful. There’s an old saying “success begets success”.

whether you like it or not, you will find graduate couple families generally more well-off than non-graduate couples families. and in terms of promotion and high level jobs, they usually go to graduates. I think that’s the basis of Mr. Lee’s statement, rather than only the biological side.

To #34 partisan. Read the following URLs.

http://topmleehsienloong.blogspot.com/2008/12/macpherson-secondary-school-janet-wong.html

http://topmleehsienloong.blogspot.com/2008/07/its-cover-up-foreigners-get-special.html

Is this meritocracy? Did accepting these $$$ rich foreign students mean denying some Singapore-born students a place?

#41 partisan –

it’s more biological than socio-economic. In fact, the biological CREATES the socio-economic situation we see in singapore today.

Graduate mothers get preferential access to the better primary schools and that’s giving the child a huge jump ahead.

Only graduates can join the SDU – whether it’s effective or not, the fact is it is an institution created by the state that reflects its eugenics ideology – have a look at SDU’s website and weep, u’all non-graduates out there.

In some societies, graduates are graduates because they are bright, and they had a fair go in the system. In Singapore’s society, our graduates are nurtured BASED ON eugenics.

This becomes a self-replicating and self-perpetuating phenomena that eventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Anyway that’s what I think that’s the article is trying to say, and many comments seem to talk past the article and its underlying arguments.

“If you don’t include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society…So what happens? There will be less bright people to support dumb people in the next generation. That’s a problem.”

- Lee Kuan Yew in a National Day Rally speech, 1983

Comments edited by moderator.

Thought provoking article, and very well-written.

However, I think you have given Lee way too much credit for what we see in Singapore today, and your article focuses way too heavily on generalities. The system is clearly skewed, but it does not completely dictate who you are based on your parents social/educational background.

My own extended family offers a comparison in point: My aunt and uncle are both graduates. One son dropped out of school before O’Levels, while the other made it to ITE.

Meanwhile, both my parents are non-graduates. My mother never even made it past Sec 3 because her family was so poor she couldn’t afford to stay on in school. My dad holds a diploma. According to so-called ‘official’ benchmarks, my family was educationally and financially at a disadvantage when compared to that of my aunt and uncle.Yet my brother holds a Masters degree from one of the world’s leading universities, and I’m in the process of getting my MA.

I don’t think our fates are closed and chosen, as you put it. They may have been restricted, and some of our options may have been curtailed (i.e. attending top secondary schools was out of the question for both my brother and I), but life is not as deterministic as you make it out to be – some degree of meritocracy does exist, and it is up to the individual to make the best of circumstances and to excel if he can. Blaming the system for one’s inherent failures or ineptitude doesn’t solve the problem and only gives one false comfort.

#44 –

there’ll always be individuals who make it despite the fact their mothers aren’t graduates. Or children of graduate mothers who don’t make it.

anecdotal data stands little in the face of empirical evidence – but Singaporeans don’t have access to them because they’re kept confidential.

if it is true that BOTH nature and nurture play a part in a child’s intelligence development, then a system that is constructed based on the belief that nature is destiny (i.e. Singapore’s education system) will leave out those who otherwise might have gotten a standing chance, but was denied it.

Allowing that few disadvantaged individuals to make it in the system and then heralding them as proof of meritocracy is an old strategy of imperialism. You’re colonised but u shld never be made to feel so strongly that you are, so strongly that you will seek to overthrow your rulers. And that’s how smart ruling elites remain in power.

#42 Mock meritocracy?

1. There is no evidence of anything that really happened in the urls you listed. It can be all made up (or not). Nobody knows the trustworthiness of the author and her articles.

2. You are assuming recruiting foreign students includes bribery – show your evidence.

3. When an institution/organisation accepts a foreign worker/student, someone will say something in the context of “depriving another Singaporean of a place”. As a small country, we need to be competitive and not practice protectionism. When Singapore companies venture overseas to expand their business, they would also “deprived” the local companies of business opportunities – so should every country shut themselves up so that their local people would not be “deprived”?

Wow, a very nice article! It just amazes me with the sentence structures and words chosen.. its been long since I read such a mesmerizing article.

Let’s look beyond the government’s policies.

It’s not difficult to understand that in sg, the rush for a degree in the local Unis is a commonly accepted way to define “successful” here.
for me, i have just left jc for NS. many of my female counterparts are currently studying in a local uni. remember during the economic boom late last year to early this year? what became the hot choices for university degrees?
.
.
.
if you answered “accountancy, business, finance” or something related, you are right. engineering courses are less ‘hot’ compared to these courses. now, with the downturn one semester later, some are re-considering their choices…wow, who would have wondered that choosing a course for study could be like buying that new handbag – making an impulse decision.

…for the new generation here, it’s all about the money. it’s not about getting rich, living the high life (cars, fashion, housing…). it’s purely about earning enough to scrape by in the future…and that piece of paper in the future would guarantee you something after you graduate.

i’m quoting from a friend here…
does that degree tell your boss that you are capable in the job scope? (..nah)
does it prove that you have the values like integrity? (no)
does it show that you are passionate in working for his company? (probably so)

…and doing an office job now as an undergrad, i don’t see why I really need the degree to do a particular job…just learn as you work…but no, companies demand a minimal paper qualification

people who think that “it’s just a piece of paper” are probably giving themselves some comfort, but you know that such thinking will allow you to thrive in this cruel world…or i would put it, cut-throat Singapore

you do not need to reach 30 to understand that only the rich and good looking thrive. everybody’s talking about the pretty girl at the corner or the car that his friends’ friend is driving….this idea of materialism has already stemmed way back when the child grows up in a world filled with advertising…remember, diamonds are expensive today not because they are beautiful, but they are a scarce resource and successful advertising (what’s that company?) has produced such a high demand for it that prices today are sky high.

too much to handle? simple…just be a leaver. follow your dreams. after all, you weigh the pros and cons. if going somewhere will make your life better, by all means this door is open.

and…by the way, in whatever path you choose to take here in Singapore…

what happened to “If there’s a will, there’s a way”?

Sometimes I wonder why almost everything here is turned into government bashing, and government scholars bashing.

Just in case you are wondering, I’m NOT a PAP member, nor a scholar. I’m happily retired……………and I’ve been through some of the most diffiult times in Singapore’s history………racial riots, mergers & separation, high unemployment, and many recessions.

I think there are many who suffer from politics of envy.

If we can discuss things rationally, TOC would be a website to be respected.

As for the question by :— 4) harish on December 19th, 2008 10.00 am #3 – how many?

Perhaps he should go to PSC website to find out. Note too there are many more scholars besides those from PSC.

Sobri,

No one is bashing anyone or anything here. They are merely voicing out their POV’s concerning what’s written here. I have noticed one thing in TOC since I came here.

Everytime someone crafts an intelligent and insightful comment concerning a lack or deficit in govt policy, they are invariably accused of being mindless “bashers” by certain quarters who hold themselves out to be the voice of reason.

Sobri, at your age and vintage. You should have the wisdom as the cantonese say to; “Taih how tit” – “get a 360 degree perspective and step out from your frog well and see things as they are; and not as you want them to be.”

If what you say is really so true,

“If we can discuss things rationally, TOC would be a website to be respected.”

Then I will just have to make a very strong recommendation to the brotherhood council to cease my role here as the Liaison officer – reason simply being, if it really comes to that:

“If we can discuss things “rationally, TOC would be a website to be respected.”

That will also probably mean, everything that is discussed here is probably worthless, useless and of little general importance.

Sobri, let ppl talk. Dont muzzle them. Providing they dont break any laws. I dont see a problem.

If you cannot take the heat, then it’s folk like you who should go somewhere else.

Pls try to take this constructively.

SD

“I think there are many who suffer from politics of envy.” then you are under a misapprehension of fact; that can only be true to case if you buy into the notion everyone aspires to work for the govt.

The last time I checked, the real winners are people are Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, not LKY or even any of the 1st division dream team.

Sobri, do not even be surprised if most netizens even consider a ministerial position slightly higher than a glorified post man. IMHO, that is not such a bad thing, at least they would have succeeded in what I elaborated in (23).

People pay taxes; they have a right to ask how their money is spent; if you dont want them to ask pointed questions; then its very simple: dont collect taxes. They will be happiest to oblige.

But pls dont fool yourself Sobri. I pains me to see a old man who should be wiser write something so stupid, it does Sobri.

SD

I am born not knowing I am born.

To my parents, I must be grateful for without them, I would have perished.

I live and grow hoping to stand on my own feet, to repay my parents and to LIVE A FREE LIFE.

BUT free life it is not.

My parents want me to be filial and successful.

The Government wants me to be hardworking and obedient.

See, they all want to dictate me when my only wish is to live and be happy.

No ambition, no grand idea but to just live and die, also cannot.

They want to be greater beings to me to make me greater than them.

I failed their expectations.

Are they more sad and disappointed than me?

patriot

#46 partisan

It is our Minister of Education who must produce the statistics to show the effectiveness of our “meritocratic education”. If you demand that the people give the proof, then the Education Minister’s pay and the Home Affairs Minister’s pay (for anti-corruption force) might as well go to the people like East Coast Life.

Remember. Not matter how self-declared “elite” and “rare talents” those folks are, they are still civil SERVANTS. It is their job to serve the people. If they want people to give them statistics, proof, and solutions, then they are not doing their job. If the online information is fabricated, why don’t the Lees who are so fond of protecting their own “integrity” and that of the PAP MPs sue East Coast Life?
http://topmleehsienloong.blogspot.com/

Anyway, if it is possible for foreigners to “donate” their way to education levels beyond, why is the option not available to the locals? What about the ruling that was changed to allow MM Lee’s grandson to attend the American school?

BTW, I am in no way related to East Coast Life. Just admire her guts, effort and tenacity to stand for the truth. She beats more that 90+% of the existing lot of pathetic “elite” PAP MPs hands-down.

#54 “education levels beyond” should be “education levels beyond their children’s existing achievement”.

50) sobri on December 20th, 2008 10.20 am
“Sometimes I wonder why almost everything here is turned into government bashing, and government scholars bashing.”

Not here only but quite a number in the blogosphere if you care to search deeper.

“If we can discuss things rationally, TOC would be a website to be respected.”

Old jewels like you know where to go and where not to go. So why are you here.

Great article. Well written and informative, if not for a tad suggestive and even slightly presumptous.

I am basically a big fan of scholarships. Dont really know if it has anything to do with meritocracy per se, but its always good to have as many streams of benefactors. I cant say it does any harm either. More the merrier.

Only I believe there is one unexplored dimension in this whole discussion. That is one reason why government scholarships and bursaries feature so prominently is because there are no large home grown firms in Singapore. Usually this role is fulfilled by the private sector in the US and EU. Part of my university degree for example was paid for by a certain pharma firm and so was my masters.

That could explain many things, but I admit, its not a perfect system. People do slip through the cracks. And very good people at that. Speaking about monkeys, Singaporedaddy @ 23) on December 19th, 2008 3.47 pm. Do tell where exactly did these monkeys stay once upon a time. Actually I did happen to hear a similar story once in the Intelligent Singaporean of a dashing man who wore a dark suit and always came to lectures immaculately dressed. Mind you, not that I want to pry, but would that be the Darkness by any chance?

Oh but I digress, where was I again? We must believe in luck, for how else can we explain the success of those we dont like?

There is undeniably a subtle undercurrent that all this ’social engineering’ is linked to Eugenics.
Albeit a very subtle form of it.

Good Afternoon Kung Fu Panda,

“A man who wore a dark suit and always came to lectures immaculately dressed.”

Ah Yes. That person you mentioned must be “darkness.”

But I am not so sure, you’re find the rest of the story so “dashing” or even glamorous.

[---deleted---]

SD

Partisan (#41),

I would have agreed to your argument that a graduate couple has more access to resources if and only if Mr Lee himself did not go on to say “If you don’t include your women graduates in your breeding pool and leave them on the shelf, you would end up a more stupid society.” in the very same speech.

I am basically a big fan of scholarships. Dont really know if it has anything to do with meritocracy per se, but its always good to have as many streams of benefactors. I cant say it does any harm either. More the merrier. – Kungfu Panda (#57)

If government scholarships really epitome meritocracy, then scholars should not be bonded. Government scholarships are really public-funded sponsorships whereby there is a bond between the sponsorship holder and the sponsor. A scholarship, on the other hand, is a prize for the best minds. Let’s call a spade a spade and call it Government Scholarships sponsorship. Stop the practice of deluding young people to join the civil service. If money is needed to motivate talents to join the civil service or public service, money alone will motivate the very same talents to engage in dis-service once they are in important administrative / political positions. That’s the ugly truth PAP must accept.

If people ask me a question and you put my answer in moderation, then why did you allow the question to go ahead then in the first place toc?

Can you please answer me? I would really like to clear up the misunderstanding. Besides we are not in school, so a reply would be highly appreciated.

Please come back to me on this Andrew. Many thanks.

SD (Internet liaison officer of the brotherhood)

I am so sorry Kung Fu Panda, I did reply to your question at December 20th, 2008 3.27 pm here, but it has subsequently pulled and placed under moderation by TOC.

Remember trust is built and a grain of sand all adds up to maketh a mountain.

Only a fool fights with someone who he can have peace.

FYI

SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)

Singaporedaddy,

Your comments are let through now – with edits.

As I have reiterated many times, please keep comments relative to the issues in the article. You have been speaking of this “darkness” person quite a number of times and he has nothing to do with the articles or the issues.

Again, I’d appreciate it if you could keep to the issues in the article.

I urge everyone else to do the same too.

Thank you.

Regards,
Andrew Loh

By the way, anyone who wants to talk about The Brotherhood or Darkness or whatever they are, can go to this thread which was created for this purpose:

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/12/the-brotherhood-darkness-and-mortals/

Thanks.

During the 18th century, Spain’s power and influence in the continent began to decline for what can only be described as mysterious reasons; many objects of interest have been postulated to account for the rot.

But one that has proven remarkably robust till this day was Charles Darwin’s hypothesis; that he once gleaned from watching monitor lizards in the Galapagos Islands. It may seem curious to all of us that lizards in some far flung corner of the world have anything substantial to do with the decline of the Spanish as a super power or even this article.

According to Darwin, one reason why Span fell into decline was bc, the smartest in society were regularly inducted en masse into the catholic church / the clergy during the 17th century was considered the center of learning, so it was only natural that scholars aspired to be men of the cloth; and what this did was leech society to it’s very marrow; to paraphrase, if one takes very intelligent people and just focus them to ONE vocation, ONE service and ONE goal thus disregarding all others. What happens then?

As a result after less than 100 years of pursuing this strategy of institutionalized dumbing down; Spain declined scientifically, economically, politically and technologically.

By the end of the 18th century, it was so riven by ineptitude and inefficiencies when compared to the French and English that many of its industries fell into disuse, many of its seafarers guilds couldn’t even perform simple math to sustain the overseas lucrative spice trade; Portuguese mercenaries in the guise of Magellan and Vasco Da Gama had to be regularly supplemented into their ranks of navigators.

The rest as the Americans say is history.

In a sense what we may be seeing with the current NARROW institutionalized focus of the scholarship program MAY not be so much a quest for excellence.

As it remains a very effective way to dumb down a nation and lay out a red carpet that leads all the way to the dodo hall of fame. Its even conceivable, if more and more clever people are inducted into the civil service; then what will happen is society will eventually lose its ying and yang, very much like the Spaniards who promoted state sanction in breeding. And there is even a danger, if taken too far, society may not be able to regenerate itself to sustain other core competencies in the field of banking, manufacturing and the sciences.

My friend darkness once wrote extensively about this corrosive policy, he vigorously advocated replacing the current scholarship program which he saw as something slightly higher than zoo keeping to something which he described in prosaic terms as the art of the beekeeper.

Many of you have read his works on this subject. Some have not.

The metaphor hardly requires any elaboration; while the zoo keeper cages up his fine exhibits or threatens to name and shame them as he lives constantly in a perpetual state of fear they will take wing; the bee keeper in the on the other hand doesn’t fear the prospects of his charges fleeing off; in fact they are even encourage to roam widely and freely free, but at the end of the day; true to the last stanza of the bee keepers tale; they will return home and even accept their state of captivity quiet willingly; it makes for explosive reading my friends.

One day; I may be persuaded to post it here; providing I don’t get censored so much; one day, you shall all learn about the tao of the bee keeper; meanwhile we would all have to make do with the way of the zoo keeper.

SD

SD

why u cut and paste from wiki one? for once can u say something less wonky and more substantial?

67) Myth of meritocracy

hahahahaha why dont you link what I cut and paste from wiki then for the benefit of ALL the readers here?

I am sure we will all be eternally grateful to you. Alas I am so sorry, I CANNOT link what Darkness once wrote I am afraid, please refer to # 64. You can blame me for following house rules can you?

Go show us how smart you are. But as the Russians say, “you cant add in what God lefted out,” I suspect they could be very true here, so I am sure, no link will be forwarded on your part. LOL

Good night.

SD

Hi #33) sylvia,

If you had presumed that when I said I went to see the world it must have meant that I was born rich, I would like to say clearly that it was not the case.

I left with a few dollars in my pocket and with lots of courage and strong will. Even at that young age, I was ready to face the unknown. I adapted from wherever I was and you might even be surprise that I was able to contribute to my family from my travels.

Just to make it clear, it was no holiday. It was a daily struggle but I would not have changed my experience for anything in the world.

Definitely not for any structured pathways.

KJ
Great write.Only it comes across as either black or white.What abt the grey?

Sd

could you post the said essay / Tao of Beekeeper versus the zookeeper for all of us please? I am sure u took what Andrew said too seriously.

I really hope a war doesnt break out between Andrew TOC and the Bro rep here.I see black clouds for readers if it rains.We would be the real losers

Hi Chia,

I agree with you – and it’s meant to be so, to spark debate. The gradations can be further discerned, just as there can numerous angles to write from – unless the angle chosen does not stand. But thanks for commenting, I appreciate it.

#37 smallvice585
3. Why there are more and more graduates among younger Singaporeans is because of improved access to higher education than rather Singaporeans have actually evolved into smarter population.

Despite imperfections in the education system, one has to also give it credit for showing some success.

[i]I was ready to face the unknown. I adapted from wherever I was and you might even be surprise that I was able to contribute to my family from my travels.

Just to make it clear, it was no holiday. It was a daily struggle but I would not have changed my experience for anything in the world.
[/i]
when i asked you
BEFORE
what was YOUR experience
you said it was a private matter
now you seem to be blowing trumpet
AGAIN
travelling and sending home remittances @ the same time
whoa!
the only people that can travelled and remit money
are callsgirls
thats is a true fact
no one can denied
are you one?
when i was WORKING
in london
i have never
ever remit a single pound home
simply because
i find it impossible to survive the costings alone
my family are lucky that i don’t need to beg for more $$$$ aids assistances from home….

Hi Glibert,
I was an avid supporter of your comments and even wanted to praise you for the article that was in ST yesterday.
However your words today has put me off totally-i quote”f you are smarter can get a scholarship and study at Harvard or Cambridge, if not you study at local unis or worse poly.”
Hey!! I am a proud diploma holder and I don’t think i am so dumb as to not being able to enter into Uni. It was a personal choice to not join the rabid rat race for paper qualifications. So what if u hold a degree or masters or even a PhD? perhaps u speak more eloquently than me but pls stop using these generic sweeping statements.
It is very hurtful.

SD

For the second time, can we all please have the essay on the way of the beekeeper? I want u to realize, I asked as a matter of record. I am working on something right now just along this track and would really appreciate some inputs. There is money there for u boys if u must know

# 75

it there isn’t any grain of truth, and you seriously feel your choice has been right, then u shldn’t let ppl’s words to affect u . unless of coz . ..

Ref: 51) singaporedaddy on December 20th, 2008 10.54 am

I do have a 360 degree view of not just Singapore but also our neighbouring countries and the world as a whole…….subject to my own ,limitations of course. No one can claim to know everything.

I was testing out the grounds here. I have posted my own views critical of the government, and had never received such a reply as this. But the moment I pointed out something which is obvious, thus the accusation that I am trying to muzzle the legitimate voice of others.

We have to be fair here. Not all the things done by the government or for that matter the Lees, were bad. Take MM’s talk in HK just after his pacemaker’s surgery. Now that reflected very well on Singaporeans………..we are the never say die kind.

On the other hand, I cannot disagree more with the Transport Minister’s attempt to link bus fair subsidy with GST increase. Bus fares have been in existence long before GST. If he linked the subsidy with decreased profits for the shareholders, it would make more sense. By his arguments, we can also link bus fare subsidy with reduction of Ministers’ salary………….now that would get a lot of support, I think.

My point is that, views that call a spade a spade, whether it is pro or anti government, should be equally highlighted.

Also, it is time to end scholar bashing. It should be clear by now that government scholarships are based on meritocracy, with all its shortcommings I admit, for a want of a better system. Bursaries are also abundant to correct the defects somewhat. Those who are against this meritocracy, should contrbute to the development of a better system, one that improves on it and not make it worse.

We wouldn’t want a system that will make everyone equally poor.

Peace to you Mo. :)

Despite imperfections in the education system, one has to also give it credit for showing some success. – cjc (#73)

Credit is only due when expectations are exceeded, when it is merely doing its job. Hence, there is no credit due for PAP. But if PAP Ministers were to have lesser salaries, then my expectation would lower too.

51) singaporedaddy on December 20th, 2008 10.54 am

BTW singapore daddy

Thank you for calling me stupid. I think you are very intelligent. May God bless you with even more intelligence.

To:

56) To sobri on December 20th, 2008 12.42 pm 50) sobri on December 20th, 2008 10.20 am
.

“If we can discuss things rationally, TOC would be a website to be respected.”

Old jewels like you know where to go and where not to go. So why are you here.

Reply:
Thank you for your concern, that perhaps I’ve lost my way.

Do you mean that I shouldn’t be here because things cannot be discussed rationally? Do you mean to say that call for rational discussion has no place here? I’m sorry if I had assumed too much. perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean.

Why am I here? Perhaps you should ask the what is the purpose of this website. Is it not a site for citizens to voice their opinions? That is exactly what I expect…..
a variety of rational opinions. I do find the articles thought-provoking. Many views too were intelligent.

BUT………..there are also many views which are simply thoughtless government and scholars bashing.

Despite imperfections in the education system, one has to also give it credit for showing some success. – cjc (#73)

Credit is only due when expectations are exceeded, notwhen PAP is merely doing its job. Hence, there is no credit due for PAP. But if PAP Ministers were to have lesser salaries, then my expectation would lower too.

# 78 – Actually it’s getting clearer and clearer our system of meritocracy is a sham.

If you are willing to step out of what the PAP have u to believe, i.e. to stop regurgitating propaganda, then I’ll recommend you the following relevant, rigorously researched materials:

1) Michael Barr, Lee Kuan Yew: Race, Culture and Genes’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 29:2 (1999), pp. 145-66.
2) Michael Barr, with Zlatko Skrbis (second author) Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity and the Nation Building Project, (Copenhagen: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies Press, 2008).
3) Lily Zubaidah Rahim, The Singapore Dilemma: The Political and Educational Marginality of the Malay Community, Oxford University Press, 1998
4) Michael Barr, The Charade Of Meritocracy, FEER, October 2006
5) Christopher Tremewan, The political economy of social control in Singapore, Palgrave & St Antony College, Oxford, 1994.

Singapore’s system is good, but it can be better. And to confront its flaws openly and honestly is the first step.

That said, any system that systematically discriminates against another group, as all the above publications will point out to you, is unfair, unmeritocratic, and downright disgraceful for a Singapore that prides itself on equality.

BUT………..there are also many views which are simply thoughtless government and scholars bashing.

Hi sobri,

My humble advise to you is to keep to the ones that engage your level of thinking. There will be thoughtless, insensitive and plain insulting elements in every corner of cyberspace (not that I am picking on the ones who replied to you). Some are necessary to stress a point while others are just plain stupid. We take them all in our strides.

These thoughtless bashings have their purpose to serve too. As long as these opinions are not imposed on us to the extent of telling us that they are the ultimate truth of the situation, then we should welcome them as part and parcel of blogging.

Hope this helps.

Good Morning All,

Another beautiful day.

———————————–

Sobri,

You are most welcome. The pleasure was entirely mine.

———————–

Chia,

That is not possible here please see house rules posted in #64. Are you trying to get me kicked out of TOC? Do you have any idea how many of my post and others people’s have been censored when DARKNESS name is brought up? Are you trying to get me into trouble Chia?

You can drop me a line in JUST STUFF or the Singapore Daily. We will take it from there. But posting the essay, the tao of the bee keeper is out of the question here, again pls see #64

You need to understand, if I post it here, then, I will inadvertently as Andrew said, “have been speaking of this “darkness” person quite a number of times.”

I have spoken to my controller and they have also told me in future to stick ONLY to the point and to drop EVERYTHING, that concerns “speaking of this “darkness” person” and presumably ANY other persons “this….person” such as Tan KL or anyone else as well.

That I consider regrettable. A few weeks ago. I wanted to mobilize many of our regular love novel readers to respond to Tan KL appeal for 100,000 signatures of support. So I arranged for a book fair here to get them all to come down. That was pulled.

I got into alot of trouble with my bosses for suggesting this as it was censored. Again, my post was censored. I could have at least garnered 20,000 Singaporean votes. Now that as well has been placed on hold.

Please remember do not talk about this darkness person or this brotherhood whoever they are or whatever they are.

You cannot blame me, all I am doing is FOLLOWING house rules. And trust me, I will FOLLOW it right down to the letter. I assure you ALL.

SD

Good Morning 78) sobri

“Also, it is time to end scholar bashing. It should be clear by now that government scholarships are based on meritocracy”

I disagree with you. If you want to come across as believable Sobri. You have to supply incontrovertible evidence to back up your statement like what 83) Cavalierio on December 22nd, 2008 8.42 am – did. Please learn to debate properly or robustly.

We in the brotherhood believe very strongly, the present scholarship program is flawed.

As I mentioned much of the work and findings was crafted in an essay which was once researched and written by us entitled Tao of the beekeeper versus the zookeeper.

Where the latter was described as the current system, while the former was the suggested NEW and IMPROVED solution.

We regret to inform you, this cannot be shared with all of you. For further details please refer to the house rules stated clearly in # 64.

As such as much as we want to buy into your subsequently statement Sobri,

“Those who are against this meritocracy, should contrbute to the development of a better system, one that improves on it and not make it worse.”

We are not able to accomodate you or anyone here further due to the present limitation which I have highlighted. In my view that is regrettable.

Many thanks and do have a very nice day

SD (Internet liaison officer of the brotherhood)

Dear all,

You see when it comes to education or even the broader topic of scholarship. Or even criteria’s or rulings. It really not so different from setting house rules, a set of do’s and don’t’s.

From my experience, it always pays to think it through at least 3 to 4 times over.

If you dont, then you may end up disrespecting people or ridding rough shot over them bc you think you are so smart and clever; and this means they will ALSO draw a very clear line how they wish to manage future relationships with you – eventually, the relationship because hard instead of soft, mistrustful instead of deep spirited trust. Then you can do very little in the way of working together to make meaningful progress – that is why I suspect the relationship between scholarship bond breakers and the folk like Philip Yeo is so acrimonious.

IMHO, it all boils down to one thing, respect.

If you dont take the trouble to even consider the long term implications and wider rammifications of your actions: then you may even solve one problem only to end up creating ten new problems – then where will you be?

For example, how do you stop a cat from jumping on a stove? Simple; Switch it on, that guarantees good results. But you also have to understand when you do that, that same cat will not jump on a cold stove either.

And here you need to ask yourself whether this sort of narrowing or funneling is such a good thing.

I personally think, its a stupid way to make meaningful progress.

SD

Also, it is time to end scholar bashing. It should be clear by now that government scholarships are based on meritocracy, with all its shortcommings I admit, for a want of a better system. – Sobri (#78)

I come from a university where almost all the Singaporean students are government scholars. Some of these scholars enjoy the subject they study at university while some love overseas experience, but none of them has any opinion on how the public service and civil service should develop. This means none of them has any expectation of the public service and civil service should adopt.

Dear TOC,

The following is my humble and personal opinion.

I do understand that TOC has grown in stature and there is an increased need for it to regulate some of the comments being posted in its discussion threads.

I also understand that most members working behind TOC are not full-timers and enforcing such regulations can be an unwanted chore. It is therefore important for posters to understand this and to exercise self-restrain when it comes to posting offensive or irrelevant comments.

TOC cannot, not for want of trying, regulate in fairness if it allows, on the one hand, offensive posts to seep through every now and then while on the other hand regulate by targeting posters who have a tendency to comment in a certain style and using descriptive forms that it may deem out of context or irrelevant to the subject.

To this end, I suggest TOC allows such postings to go through and let readers decide, minus the usual objectional contents that are racial, religious and and personal in nature, of course.

This is just an opinion and a reply is not necessary. I know that we have been asking a lot of TOC lately and you guys have been very patient and understanding to our requests. I appreciate this and if there is any way I can continue to provide helpful suggestions, I will.

Keep up the good job! You guys have been great!

In my humble opinion, there is a confusion between meritocracy, elitism, and social welfare:

1. Meritocracy is the selection of people based on their ability, regardless of family background, affluence, race, or even genes!! :-). This is the most beneficial mechanism to the organisation.

2. Elitism is giving special privileges to a class of people whom are perceived as superior. This is often confused with meritocracy.

3. Social welfare is benefits provided to the general public. More commonly, it specifically refers to benefits provided to the less privileged people, like the old, sick, poor etc.

In this light, some of the common issues can seen as follows:

a. Only allowing university graduates to have matching service, i.e. SDU. This is elitism since it excludes people who are perceived as less superior.

b. Awarding scholarships/sponsorships (or whatever it’s called) based on ability is MERITOCRACY, NOT ELITISM, because the selection criteria does not look at the family background of the applicant. The sole criteria is competency. You don’t ask the applicant how much his family earns and give him the scholarship/sponsorship just based on that.

c. We can question whether the selection criteria is overly based on academic results. This is a valid point about what qualifies as “competent” but we should always remember that the whole point is always about ABILITIES, not about giving privileges or making things fair to different classes of people.

d. Children of better-off families (in terms of education or wealth) tend to do better on average due to a variety of factors which are mostly social and economical, and only rarely genetical. This is a widely accepted as true. (Note that I mean on the whole, not individually, i.e. I do not mean it is impossible for less well-off children to make it.)

e. I think the most relevant topic of helping the less privileged class is the issue of social welfare. The most practical approach is to ask how can we help the less privileged class more effectively without increasing the budget. This is also the hardest approach. For example, cutting welfare administrative cost, simplification of application process, reducing subsidies abuse, more effective pedagogical methodologies, etc.

f. Increase the social expenditure is seemingly the easiest way out. Most often it means increasing taxation which is an unpopular choice. THE BOTTOM LINE IS —- how much more are you willing to pay to support people worse off than you?

g. Look at things this way: People who are not paying taxes, probably like the family above, are living off other taxpayers for social benefits (which is neither unlawful nor disgraceful). For people who are already paying taxes, how many are willing to pay more tax to support families like the above without enjoying additional benefits themselves? People in higher tax bracket has less to gain — they can afford what they want and don’t use much social subsidies anyway.

# 90 – you entirely missed the point.

meritocracy is merely another elitist system of social organisation by another set of criteria.

elitism is inevitable in any type of societies.

our current elitism is merely an outcome of meritocracy that is inherently elitist.

#90) Ginger Old Man

Good take from points 1 to 3 but I have problem with your take from points a to g. Care to share discuss them further?

Points b & c. How certain are you that elitism is not in play during the selection process of meritocracy. One fine example is our Primary 1 registration system. One can advance his queue number by 1, 2 or 3 stages depending on one’s degree of affiliation to the school of choice. If you have siblings in the same school, you place is assured, if you are a grassroot member, you queue number is shortened, you are even accorded privilege if you live in close proximity of within 1 km, just to name a few. Is this meritocracy or some sort of class system at work? Cannot say it is elitism as well.

Point d. Perception or truth? Prove it.

Point e. Why must social welfare be equated with handouts? Most people who ask for help would prefer if they were given opportunities to be able to put in place an avenue that help sustain their continued welfare based on their own effort. In other word, society must ask itself why is this group of people ‘under-privileged’ in the first place and help them ‘up’ their privilege instead.

Points f & g. These points become irrelevant when point e is properly looked into, don’t you think? When the underprivileged are taught how to live ‘in’ privilege, they will in turn contribute to the economy instead of continuing to live off it.
:)

#92 gemami
Points b & c. How certain are you that elitism is not in play during the selection process of meritocracy. One fine example is our Primary 1 registration system. One can advance his queue number by 1, 2 or 3 stages depending on one’s degree of affiliation to the school of choice. If you have siblings in the same school, you place is assured, if you are a grassroot member, you queue number is shortened, you are even accorded privilege if you live in close proximity of within 1 km, just to name a few. Is this meritocracy or some sort of class system at work? Cannot say it is elitism as well.

If we use his (#90) definition of meritocracy and elitism, then the primary 1 registration system is not meritocratic. Moreover, the main criteria in the registration process is not elitist.

First, the unfairness of the registration process you mentioned above does not look at child’s ability, therefore it is not meritocratic. In fact, it shouldn’t be. How we can gauge a child’s performance even before he or she starts formal education?

Second, the main rational of the registration process, I believe, is to reduce travelling time and also to ease the load of families with more than one child. Proximity to school and presence of sibling in the school are the main factors for consideration. These has nothing to do with the social class of the child, so it is not elitist. Obviously, this is not meritocratic.

I suppose that you want to mean that the registration process is unfair. It is. Familiies living further away do not have an equal chance. But this is neither meritocracy nor elitism. It is a trade-off between travelling convenience and having more school choices.

Your points about giving admission advantage to grassroots leaders and alumni is a valid one. But it is not elitism because not all the grassroot leaders or alumni belong to the upper social class. This type of unfairness is just unfairness which is not specific enough to be categorised as elitism. And I agree that it is a good idea to abolish such privileges. But I believe the proximity and sibling rules should be kept.

84) gemami on December 22nd, 2008 9.01 am Hi sobri,

My humble advise to you is to keep to the ones that engage your level of thinking. There will be thoughtless, insensitive and plain insulting elements in every corner of cyberspace (not that I am picking on the ones who replied to you). Some are necessary to stress a point while others are just plain stupid. We take them all in our strides.

—————————–

Thank you gemani for your concern.
I’m immune to insensitive remarks, and will always try my very best never to descend to name-calling.

I think my years of experience dealing with all kinds of people has fortified me enough……….and I know there are many people out there who are sensible.

——————————-
86) singaporedaddy on December 22nd, 2008 9.54 am Good Morning 78) sobri

Yes it is…………..it is a good morning. I hope it is too for you.

>We in the brotherhood believe very strongly, the present scholarship program is >flawed.

I agree with you there. There are defects.

>We are not able to accomodate you or anyone here further due to the present >limitation which I have highlighted. In my view that is regrettable.

>Many thanks and do have a very nice day

Now that IS a sad fact. You are right, it is regrettable, if there is indeed a better system. It should be debated openly, perhaps even at the PAP website.

Perhaps one day it will come true………seeing just how the government is opening up, though slowly.

Have a nice day to you too.

Hi cjc,

You are right about the unfainessof the Primary 1 registration process and I will accept your explanation.

As for the advantage given to grassroots leaders and alumni, and while agreeing that they do not fall under the elite category description, I cannot help but think that there is still an element of it in the process. Should we call it Class II or Class III Elites? It still suggests a class system of sort, am I right?

#92 gemami
Point d. Perception or truth? Prove it.

Please don’t take it offensively. Isn’t the whole point trying to argue that rich or educated people generally has some advantage. And this is true generally (i.e. on the average) but not always true individually (i.e. any specific person)? And that the reasons are largely economical and social, rather biological or laziness? So there is hope, and no disgrace. And that goal is to help the economically or socially disadvantage people catch up by providing welfare, support, opportunities etc?

#95 gemami
I cannot help but think that there is still an element of it in the process. Should we call it Class II or Class III Elites? It still suggests a class system of sort, am I right?

As for the part about alumni, there might be some connotation of elitism since some accepted students might happen to be children of successful alumni, although I don’t think it going be very very rare. It’s only primary school, too early. How possible is it that a primary school can actually churn out “elites”?

I think the main intention is build strong alumni networks and a sense of identity, which I don’t think is excluding any social class. Personally, I prefer not since I find it better to give families living nearby more convenience.

What I was looking at was:

a. that since, generally, rich or educated people has some advantage, then what are we actually looking at, meritocracy or elitism? Consider this, if the rich pool gets bigger, intellectual level increases because of the advantage this group enjoys, then what becomes of the equation? A super-intelligent group of people who enjoys both the fruits of Elitism and Meritocracy? What’s left for the rest of the deprived lot who cannot even compete to begin with?

b. Biological, or genes. This is very much against one man’s believe that super-genes begets super-genes. How to disprove this especially as the belief that this can be cultivated to increase this pool of superdupergenes community?

I know I am asking out of the context of this discussion but I would appreciate your opinion on this, if you do not mind.

Thanks.

>88) smallvice585 on December 22nd, 2008 10.57 am
>I come from a university where almost all the Singaporean students are >government scholars. Some of these scholars enjoy the subject they study at >university while some love overseas experience, but none of them has any >opinion on how the public service and civil service should develop. This means >none of them has any expectation of the public service and civil service should >adopt.

———————————————————-
Smallvice585, Good morning.
I feel that you are generalising too much here. Government scholars are NOT permitted to join a political party, even the PAP, while under the scholarship. If I were one, I wouldn’t want to voice to you or any others, except to my own group, about my expectations of the civil service for many reasons, most important of which would be the danger of a negative remark being used by people who are out to bash the government.

Now why would I want to take that risk, when I’m still in the process of studying, learning and hardly know much about the inner workings of the civil service? Any scholar, worth his or her salt, would want to find out further, to get a better picture of the service before making suggestions, much less criticisms.

Can you really claim to know all the facts pertaining to even just one matter in Singapore e.g. Water? Do you know about the conflicting consequences of just one policy to the various ministries?

It is wise of the scholars not to say anything, until they can get a full picture. Perhaps many non-scholars should take a lesson from this too.

Having said that, I am actually supportive of young people voicing their idealism, even in a non-ideal real world. Young people should hold a high degree of idealism, which in time will have to be compromised somewhat.
If they start at a compromised stage, then they would descend to an even lower level. This would be bad for the society.

#98 gemami

This is what I think:

I agree with #90 that children in better educated families tend to do better on average (not always). And I also believe that in most cases the reason can be economical and social. But, more importantly, the dominant advantage is largely cultural, as in the “cultural capital” that #18 mentioned and also what Obama has said: [1]

“…no education policy can replace a parent who’s involved in their child’s education from day one, who makes sure their children are in school on time, helps them with their homework after dinner, and attends those parent-teacher conferences. No government program can turn off the TV, or put away the video games, or read to your children.”

The point is not to put the blame on parents, but to say that:

a) Meritocracy and elitism are not the what gives more educated families a head-start. Elitism should be abolished because it deliberately gives privileges to a particular class of people. Meritocracy should be upheld because it is impartial to race, religion, background, etc.

b) Even if the advantage that children in educated family possess is sort of “born into”, because the success factors are cultural, social, and economical (and rarely genetic), the socio-economic gap CAN be narrowed.

c) The more effective approach to narrowing the socio-economic gap is through social welfare and educational policies, rather than eliminating any comparative advantage to set the playing field to ground zero. (I doubt the Chinese Communist Party now thinks that Cultural Revolution is the solution to poverty.) Particularly, we need to go beyond monetary hand-outs to stretch the taxpayers’ dollar.

Take education policies, some possibilities include what #18 has said. In additional, there is reliable evidence blindly pumping more money does not improve the quality of education. What works are: hiring the best to be teachers, training teachers well, giving weak students more help and earlier [2]. In these 3 aspects, I think there are still rooms for improvement.

[1] Barack Obama’s Education Speech in Ohio. http://www.barackobama.com/2008/09/09/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_111.php
[2] How to be Top: Lessons in education policy. The Economist, Oct 2007.
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_JJRJJTQ
(full article here: http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/education4.html)

Hi TOC,

I posted a comment here but it didn’t appear. Is there a technical problem, or was it censored? How does it work? Is it possible to make the discussion forum transparent?

Hi cjc,

Your comment wasn’t censored. The comment has more than one url link and was automatically put in moderation. This is to prevent spam comments from being posted, like those from porn websites.

Your comment is now released from the queue.

Regards,
Andrew Loh

Hi cjc,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I still have this lingering thought in my head that meritocracy is very often, if not all the time, associated with tertiary education, that is, intellectual advancement and the accordance of merit by the degree of this advancement. Academic achievement counts above all else.

Besides academic ability, can meritocracy be applied in other areas of one’s life? What about the ability to connect, to be of ’social value’ to the community, of being able to contribute effectively to the progress of the country. How measureable is this outside of academic achievement or attainment?

Let me offer an example:
I have with me a colleague who holds a non-executive position whose contributions to the department (and therefore company) is way beyond 3 executives put together, in terms of knowledge and expertise in the areas of crafting policies and determining new job scopes etc.

He highest education level is ‘O’ level while the 3 executives are degree holders and very ofthen, these executives would come to him for help when they need to word documents like job instructions or new initiatives. The executives will ultimately put name to paper and take credit for the work done. What does it leave behind for this poor fellow? How does meritocracy apply in a scenario like this?

#103 gemami

I believe that the competency should, as far as possible, be interpreted in the broader sense as you have mentioned. Because appraising the performance of a large group of people is inherently difficult, academic achievement is often used as a first stage to filter candidates. The process is imperfect, but it does not arise from practicing meritocracy but from the difficulty of performance appraisal.

What we can do and should do is try our best within practical bounds to appraise performance as accurately as possible, then select the most competent candidate for the job. In most cases, using the broader type of appraisal is only possible when the number of candidates has been narrowed down to a manageable size.

To see if meritocracy is practiced in your specific example, the question to ask is this: “Who is more capable at the job?” In this particular situation, we can actually afford to go beyond academic qualifications to appraise abilities.

If whatever non-executive staff is helping is not just part of the job of the executive staff but all of their work, then it is clear that the non-executive staff is more competent and should be selected to do the job. If that is really the situation, then your department is not meritocratic. On the other hand, if the executive staff are actually also doing other stuff that the non-executive is not capable of, then the situation becomes more complicated. And I don’t feel qualified to comment without knowing the details.

Whether your department is meritocratic or not , I think the non-executive should be acknowledged since it seems to me that she has made a substantial contribution. But it looks more like a problem of office politics here.

Gemami 103,

Yes, you are right, that’s an astute observation. Just to add on.

I believe there are two types of people in this world; one is sheep; the other are foxes.

Sheep are good. They’re obedient. Reliable and dependable especially when one considers how readily they take to the pen without too much fuss. And if sherperded wisely they can even produce moderate to fair results, but don’t expect anything stellar; that’s true to the nature of sheep; one needs to set the right expectations.

Foxes on the otherhand; are perennially difficult, if not impossible to control; for one they’re capricious and ANY talk of “control” is strictly out the question; one could even say whether they choose to do your bidding depends on the vagaries of a hundred; if not a thousand things; but foxes when matched properly with their element are diabolically smart; they know when to pull and push; and when it comes to the snatch and run; they have no comparable equal and that’s why they will always remain the preferred quarry of the professional huntsman and his terriers – the fox will always be the proverbial run for your money by half.

Now you know why no bothers to hunt sheep; it’s like SDU, they’re just standing there; they’re simply zero sport.

The problem is this; when we talk about meritocracy and scholarship in tandem; while we may all agree and disagree on an endless medley of objects of interest; there is one thing that we can all agree on without too much difficulty.

Never ever send a sheep to do the fox’s job.

The problem as I see it; there are too many sheeps in the system; as for the foxes; they’re too busy impersonating sheep.

But trust me; their day will come. It must. It always does.

SD

Hi cjc,

I do agree that appraising a large group of people is not an easy task. But I am pointing out one from among the big group whom everyone know is deserving of some meritocratic recognition by his own merit. The department’s colleagues from peers to executives and managers have all pushed for some form of recognition from the company’s HR division.

Unfortunately, the only stumbling block is his O level education. HR cannot proceed to recognise his contribution because of his lack of academic achievements. It is compelled to follow a set of strict guidlines that stipulates meritocracy by academic achievements only. We are talking about a govt institution here.

Even his former manager who had since left after being promoted to a Director position, felt bad for him that all these executives and managers have moved up while this poor fellow is being left behind to help new executives and managers on their way up.

Walk into this department and you will see the many initiatives, good works and strong foundations which the dept is progressing on, which this fellow has contributed to, since his arrival a few years ago.

Talk to him about meritocracy and he laughs, without resentment, because he enjoys his work. This is besides the point. Where is the ‘to-give-credit-where-credit-is-due’ part of meritocracy?

This is why I say that meritocracy must be further addressed by the govt to make it clear that academic achievements should not, must not, be the ONLY criteria for appraisals. This is the case with the current understanding of meritocracy.

Hi singaporedaddy,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts but I think you’ve missed the point for once, ha! ha!, although it is a good lesson by itself.

I don’t think we are looking at the comparison of the peer-to-peer factor. In the present national context of meritocracy, we are looking more at the ’shepherds’, by the way you have described.

It is more like the search for good shepherds, than it is, the ability of the shepherd to command his sheep. It is about the shepherds who decide whether you make enough of a good shepherd to join the clique, by a single criteria, which is, your ability to read and write.

Against this, I am saying, the shepherds ought to look at other factors that are just as meritorious, like his ability to connect with the sheep, his love and joy working with the sheep etc. Can these be measured and how?

#106 gemamiThis is why I say that meritocracy must be further addressed by the govt to make it clear that academic achievements should not, must not, be the ONLY criteria for appraisals. This is the case with the current understanding of meritocracy.

I understand what you mean. This is exactly what I believe needs to be done.

This is not just about idealism, but also tackling the problem in its roots. In this case, elitism is not at fault. The problem is simply not upholding meritocracy enough: selecting the most competent people do the job.

Academic qualifications is probably the only practical way to sort out massive number of applications. But whenever possible, I find government and large organisations generally (i.e. on the whole, not every instance) has a greater tendency to overlook other aspects beyond paper qualifications. Small companies are usually better at this, although the appraisal criteria is less standardised.

(I don’t know the details, so I don’t think I can or should draw specific conclusions about your work place.)