by Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the articles “School system ‘still best way to move up’”, “MPs speak for kids from poorer families” and “New chapter in the Singapore story” (ST, Mar 8).
These articles were page after page (four pages) of statistics cited by the Education Minister to more or less dismiss MPs’ concerns that kids from poorer families were disadvantaged. I do not think I have ever seen so many statistics given to support a position in a Parliamentary debate!
Unfortunately, I could not find a single statistic which in my view, is “statistically” relevant to the debate.
Irrelevant Statistics
Statistics that are quoted, by themselves, may be quite meaningless, unless they are on a comparative basis.
To illustrate this, if we want to say that Group A (poorer kids) is not significantly worse off than Group B (richer kids), then it may be pointless to just cite the statistics for Group A, without Group B’s.
Let me now get into the specifics of the statistics cited:
“How children from the bottom one-third by socio-economic background fare: One in two scores in the top two-thirds at PSLE”
“One in six scores in the top one-third at PSLE”
What we need to know for comparative purposes, is the percentage of richer kids who scores in the top two-thirds too.
“How children from 1 – to 3-room HDB flats fare: One in five scores in the top one-third at PSLE”
We need this data for different time periods, as the proportion of those living in such flats had changed over the years. What we need to know is has this proportion who score well, changed in the last 5, 10, 20, 30 years, etc.
“… one in five scores in the top 30% at O and A levels… One in five goes to university and polys”
What’s the data for richer kids?
Since the proportion of the entire population going to university and polys has increased substantially, this clearly shows that poorer kids are worse off!
“These figures have remained constant even though the number living in 1 to 3-room HDB flats has fallen sharply over the years”
This statement may be “statistically” irrelevant, as all it may indicate is that the lower-income’s chances of performing better, on a relative basis, has remained stagnant.
“Top PSLE pupils- The top 5% come from 95% of schools… Every primary school has at least 10 pupils in the top third of the cohort”
This may be “statistically” of no relevance to the debate, as logically every primary school is made up of both poorer and richer kids.
Citing individual examples?
According to the articles:
“Education Minister Ng Eng Hen calls Hong Siang Huat “a living example of social mobility”. He came from a poor family but is off to Britain on a government scholarship.”
The Minister was quoted as saying:
“My parents had six children. My first home as a young boy was a rental flat in Zion Road. We shared it as tenants with other families”
Citing individuals who made it, may be of no “statistical” relevance, as what we need are the statistics as to the proportion of poorer kids to richer kids, who get scholarships, proportional to their representation in the population.
“More spent on primary and secondary/JC schools. This means having significantly more and better teachers, and having more programmes to meet children’s specific needs”
What has spending more money, which what most countries do, got to do with the argument whether poorer kids are disadvantaged?
I think Straits Times journalist, Li XueYing put the crux of the debate in the right perspective:
“Dr Ng had noted that ensuring social mobility “cannot mean equal outcomes, because students are inherently different”, But can it be that those from low-income families are consistently “inherently different” to such an extent?”
Relevant statistics
Perhaps the most damning statistics that poorer kids are disadvantaged was the chart from the Ministry of Education (provided by the Straits Times), which showed that the percentage of Primary 1 pupils who lived in 1 to 3-room HDB flats and subsequently progressed to University and/or Polytechnic, has been declining since around 1986.
The statistics cited by the Minister Mentor, that in top schools like Raffles Institution, more than half of the students had fathers who were university graduates, in neighbourhood schools the figure hovered around 10 per cent, etc, was perhaps clearer statistical evidence, that the odds may be stacked against poorer kids.
As to: “… now ITE students in the bottom 15th percentile income bracket (per capita household income of up to $300) will receive $1,000 a year, up from $800 a year”, how significant is this extra help of about 55 cents to a total of $2.74 a day, for a student whose family is clearly struggling on less than $300 per person per month?
In summary, if not for the Straits Times’ reference to the MOE tertiary and Minister Mentor’s data, the entire debate may arguably be a good lesson on statistics for Parliamentarians, on how to try to win a debate with entirely “statistically” irrelevant statistics!
Support TOC! Buy Leong Sze Hian’s book here!
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
yeah right.. a malay student no so bright want to study higher hoppin for a grant from the muis funds.. and he was turned down outright from the muis committees as though the fund is from the muis personal pockets…
ere we are again..a karaoki song from this breastpressin minister who booasted we got him as a bargain deal….
dr hen please lark..go geylarg asked the chickens why they crossed the road?
they still think singaporeans are daft…
why the goverment bothers to build 1-2 room flats? a family should at least be given a 3 room flat to live in if they honestly are pro family, pro singaporeans, pro human.
Dear TOC & Leong Sze Hian,
What is truly frightening is that our policy-makers are from the so-called elite scholars from elite schools. Now if these schools are made up of mostly rich kids – then what does that say about our policy-makers ?
Worse still is the fact that the number of minorities in these elite schools are small. But we need the minority input in policy making ! Singapore cannot steer itself through the waters of the Nusantara without minority input !
I propose a race-blind affirmative action program for the children of lower-income families.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
The way the minister presents the statistics sends a very strong signal that he has something to hide. Otherwise he would have given straightforward numbers such as proportion of children from rich and poor families in the top 1/3 of the cohort.
The ministers “statistics” do not throw any light on whether the lot of the poor has improved over time, relative to the rich.
Once again, thank you Mr.Leong, for tearing the minister’s arguments to shreds.
To quote just one example of a poor boy on govt scholarship doesn’t prove anything. Maybe he was just given the scholarship so that he can be used as an “example” during such wayang parliament sittings. Remember the case of a SBS foreign bus captain (aka driver) which was cited by LHL during the last ND speech – as living example of FW/FT integrating well and getting praises from passengers. Big deal, there are probably 10 others who don’t integrate well and collect curses from Singaporeans. In short, one point data is not statistics; hmm, dun our Education Minister know das?
Want to present statistics, pls show how ministers pay has changed over the years, with reference to the median wage.
Please differentiate FT and foreign labour,when raise levies foreign labour
inflow partly solved
those cabinet ministers must be thanking their lucky stars that Mr Leong is not interested to enter politic otherwise they will be having a very hard time in parliament.
Who need those 82 white MPs when this article alone from Mr Leong is a thousand times better than those white MPs talking rubbish and a waste of time in parliament.
they are so overpriced that they should drop their pay immediately
hey,haa anyone though that these miws do not understand the ‘statistics’ they are illustrating to cement their flawed arguments?
now,take for instance,do our govt leaders understand enough statistics that importing never-ending numbers of those JOBLESS FTs is going to cause social disruption arising from misbalancing oF TESTED AND TRIED LOYAL SINGAPOREANS as aganist untested ‘new citizens/PRs/FTs?
should there indeed be ‘de-stabilsation’,who should answer for it?
are we going to TAI-CHI blames to our loyal singaporeans or what-have-you?
FTs are loyal first and foremost to their
birth countries – this is undeniably true!
“FTs are loyal first and foremost to their
birth countries – this is undeniably true!”
Agree. Their roots are in the countries they come from, and therefore their first loyalty lies there. They’re here to earn a living, period.
OMG, my thoughts exactly when reading the papers! Nice one, Sze Hian!
Great work in shredding million dollar minister dr hen ‘s debate into pieces and trying throw smoke bombs at singaporeans won’t work any more. PAP had better wake up to the reality on the ground. Rich and elite goes hand in hand and for them to grab most I the scholarship and sponsorship from gov is despicable and selfish. How many of the capable poor children deny their rights for decades while the rich helped themselves?
Applause that it would aptly describe the statistics used in your comparisons of Singapore Growth to Malaysia growth
Wow! This policy maker is giving citizens a strong reason not to renew his term.
This piece of argument from policy makers is a disgrace to statistics. The writer is right in his observations. I will even go further to suggest that the populations of students from poor and richer backgrounds be provided, on a year to year basis. I assume we are talking about Singaporean children here (?) With the cohorts getting smaller over the years, it is therefore early enough for us to monitor children populations vs the inferences we draw. If we include foreigners and PRs, then we should separate them, and include the scholarship numbers in each group.
I don’t expect all MPs to be numerate, concerned or in-depth enough to challenge him. However, if anyone tells me none of them are doing this, it calls the calibre/ moral conscience of the entire group of policy makers to question.
For someone to be named the highest paid education politician, the least that should be done, is provide true and complete statistical arguments, not something worse than statistics 101, including using single examples to support general conclusions.
Trust him? Listen 2 his crap on Teach Less Learn More.
After that get Immigrants to replace all of us.
Wow. If he get elected again, is another Dr Susan case.
All cost are justifiable.
Why aint the journalists having the same think-tank intellect as Leong Sze Hian? Have these journalists received poor education that they can’t even have the questioning and analytical mind to write a more objective and thought provoking news rather than rely on blind statistics that (as LSH quoted) irrelevant to the whole report.
This is what you get when a surgeon becomes Minister for Education. His instinct is to cut conservatively or replace, rather than save the original situation. :D
I work in a ministry for almost 15 years and so far throughout the years, 70%-80% of our PSC overseas scholars are from rich backgrounds — staying in condo or landed property. That’s basically the top 20%-25% of the income bracket in Singapore.
Govt scholarships are meant for open competition. The fact that consistently 70+% are won by those staying in private properties suggest that family financial background is an over-riding factor in determining at least the academic performance of the children. The saying that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer is definitely true in this context.
Most of these rich scholars can afford those overseas education in Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Cambridge in the first place. Quite a few of them are not really enthusiastic about civil service. When the economy was bad, they just did the minimum to keep their jobs safe and not to get marked by bosses. When the economy is good now, they start bitching about how much their peers are getting at investment banks and consultancy firms. Some of them quit after 1 or 2 years and their family paid the $400K to $500K liquidated damages like it’s just $5.
Libran
Agree. Their roots are in the countries they come from, and therefore their first loyalty lies there.
…………..
remembered that chinese atheletic girl who won a gold or silver for singapore holdin her red singapoor ic?
when beijin 2008 olympic was held..she went back to china..donned her super duper people army uniform fully armed with a submachinegun doin the goosemarch on the olympic opennin night..
the chinese newsmedias asked her
are you chinese? she replied YES
the newmedias asked her again…which nation chinese are you?
her answer was DIRECT.. no hesistation
wak su chongkuaren (meanin i am a cina chinese)
No point bring up this matter to a million dollar minister,if this issue was brought up to the late Goh Keng Swee it would have been a different story,anyone disagree
Let’s produce some interesting and relevant “statistics” for our $,$$$,$$$ Ministers and $$$,$$$ PAP MPs in the coming General Erection!
>>>> The way the minister presents the statistics sends a very strong signal that he has something to hide. Otherwise he would have given straightforward numbers such as proportion of children from rich and poor families in the top 1/3 of the cohort.
totally agree, we need to vote out Ng Eng Hen.
The education system here is like a cold production factory – producing units-of-human-labour for the corporation that is Singapore Inc.
This production factory does not care if these ‘units-of-human-labour’ will eventually have a job, or for how long the local ‘human-labour’ keeps the job, because it let in hundreds of thousands of ‘other’ ‘human-labour’.
The Cold-Production-Factory that washes it’s hands off once the ‘human-labour’ graduates from their studies, how can it feel the heartaches of the parents, or future parents to see their children without meaningful work, or to compete vis-a-vis people that come from places that paid so much less for their education.
And with Singapore Inc seeing its sole purpose is to produce higher GDP, the result is locals are made to compete without restriction with the best and worse of the world for jobs at all levels, except for the political office holders, relations and cronies of the political figures (like HO CHING, LeeHsienYang etc.)
…
Does he still “earn 5 times more”?
Plus 8 months bonus?
so ah leong, wads ur solution?
Actually, the first set of numbers can be used to construct a rough picture. You can apply basic math and knowledge of basic set theory to derive the following result (tells our story – that social-economic position has a significant impact on the measure of “success”, not the spin):
In the top 1/3 of PSLE scores, people from the lower 1/3 income bracket occupy only 1/6 of those positions. A big boo-boo for meritocracy.
In the 2nd 1/3, that income bracket take 1/3 of the positions there, which is what we would expect from an ideal meritocratic system where income plays no role.
Finally, in the bottom 1/3, the people from low income pick up 1/2 of the positions which is necessarily the result of having poorer representation at the top end.
“How children from the bottom one-third by socio-economic background fare: One in two scores in the top two-thirds at PSLE”
Kids from poor backgrounds are always disadvantaged even in a meritocracy. The first statistic is confusing to me. What does TOP Two-Thirds mean? Does it mean any student that passes PSLE from 66% of the marks to 100%? So 50% of students from poor backgrounds score that figure, great. I applaud the poor students for working hard and making that grade but not to devalue the effort those students did, it sounds average to me. When Edu minister says, “One in six scores in the top one-third at PSLE”, that is depressing. It means only 16.7% of students from poor background score within the top 82% to 100% grades. That is low and not at all indicative of any advantages afforded to poor students.
Same thing for O levels and A levels.
“… one in five scores in the top 30% at O and A levels… One in five goes to university and polys”
Meaning 20% of students from poor background only made it to Universities and Polys. That is a low percentage. Again no offence to those students who study and work hard but it is not good enough to demonstrate the school system is helping the poor students significantly progress higher in their careers.
I think the Education Minister should be saying to the parliament when he says those figures, those figures may look imoressive to him but there can be much more improvements that can be made to help the poorer students. I hope he thinks that and do actions on it rather than just be happy with the statistics that he quoted.
Coming general election…kindly cast all parliaments ‘elites’ out. Vote for OPPOSITIONs.
WEll, statistics are indeed unrepresentative and bias. No point talking if the sample frames are invalid.
There is no meritocracy in the private world la. Look at how all the top technology jobs go to a non-Singapore graduates in the banking sector!
http://moolahoooh.blogspot.com/2011/03/fake-talents-in-singapore.html
First of all, the Education Minister should come up with statistics that comprises only sporean excluding PRs. However, I guess he only has the data for both PRs and sporeans. So i guess he didnt make up a good argument.
We really need a breakdown that is separate between sporean and PRs.
We have been living so long until the govt forgot that spore belong to sporean, not PRs or FT.
As for myself, i was in the normal stream in secondary school. I studied 5 years during secondary and then off to NGee Ann poly. Afterwards, i applied to NTU and studied part time and earn a degree. When my family become well-off, they help me with some money and I finished off with a double masters from Australia.
I not a scholar calibre. But at least with money, i am able to pursue my studies. I worked in australia for a few years and then come back to work with the Singapore police force. Right now, i have my own business in Thailand.
I will like to stress that without money, a normal average person can never pursue his studies to higher standard. similarily, withou govt support, a lower-income’s child can never find interest in study.
The govt should channel its money to help lower-income children to continue studying. One out of several lower-income may be able to study higher.
We should not spend money in giving scholarship to FT or PRs. They are not true blue sporeans. They might leave one day. Spend money and ideas on the ground for sporean instead of giving it to PRs or FTs. I wont mind if the scholarship is given to a true calibre scientist or an area where our spore is lacking in.
Not givng scholarship in BA, or engineering. we are over-flooded with them.
Line should be drawn
It is very sickening. when u know that malay student don’t need to pay school fees. Are malay born to be poor in singapore ?
They are dishing out new goodies on ST daily to bribe that i’m afraid we’ll be bankrupt!!
mr. leong, you should be paid millions instead of this dud of a minister and i believe you will also have the answer.
locals are too daft, brainwashed DAILY by SHIT TIMES and CNA and walla, you have this ministers and paying themselves millions, of course pm has to pay them such,
TO KEEP COMING OUT WITH GUTTER GARBAGE,
so that pm and cronies can also ROBBED locals BLIND !!!
hooray for CRONIES and MILLION DOLLARS ONES to provide GUTTER GARBAGE….
hooray to the DAFTS too, money for NOTHING !!!
Great post!
I’m thoroughly disgusted at the way this minister throws around these statistics as though we should be impressed by them. He made absolutely no effort to be critical of current outcomes; instead, like all our ministers, he’s more interested in putting a positive spin on things. I’m increasingly disappointed and shocked at their reluctance to change anything about the curent state of affairs.
I am very encouraged to read Gahmen Worker’s post above.
I hope more civil servants and those working in GLCs will come forward and share their experiences.
Government statistics have been skewed for a long time because, first, you need to ask the right question to get the right answer. For example, there is no quick way to access how wages for the bottom 20 or 30% of the population have moved over the past 10 or 20 years in real terms ie adjusted for inflation (you get year-to-year comparisons but not 10 or 20 year perspectives). Or what the real subsidy for C-class wards are. For these we need someone like Leong Sze Hian
Second, as commentators have pointed out above, the government has adopted the practice of lumping citizen’s and PRs figures together. I am not sure when this change took place but it is an attempt to create, in the public’s mind, the impression that citizens and PRs are one ie that PRs will eventually become citizens in a never-ending stream, so “might as well lump them together”.
The answer is to put some smart people into Parliament. High salaries do not equal “smart”.
Kelvin, I would like to respond to this para of your post:
“I will like to stress that without money, a normal average person can never pursue his studies to higher standard. similarily, withou govt support, a lower-income’s child can never find interest in study”.
By the time a child reaches college-going age, it is too late. The damage is done, in many cases the child from a low income family has lost interest in studies. There are many reasons for this, including the fact that with both parents out working there is no supportive home environment and no one to encourage him/her to read, let alone study.
We need smaller class sizes, so that teachers can spend more time with weak students. Of course, smaller sizes means more teachers as well (all problems are magnified because of the increase in the size of our population). Instead of saving the billions the government makes each year (over $20 billion according to Leong Sze Hian), money should be made available to improve primary education.
It is in the earliest years that a child’s interest in studies is created and where it should be nurtured (note: “interest” does not mean “pressure”).
I think the govt has the information to provide statistics for PSLE, O-levels and A levels as follow:
% of students in 1-3rooms flat (Cat A), 4rms and above (CatB), private properties(CatC) vs % of the above categories in 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quartile.
Example :PSLE
% of CatA students in 1-3 room flats: 30%
% of CatA students in 1st quartile : 65%
% of CatA students in 2nd quartile : 20%
% of CatA students in 3rd quartile : 10%
% of CatA studnets in 4th quartile : 5%
% of CatC students in private prop. :15%
% of CatC students in 1st quartile : 5%
% of CatC students in 2nd quartile : 10%
% of CatC students in 3rd quartile : 25%
% of CatC students in 4th quartile : 60%
Statistics like the above is all revealing and everyone understands and can judge for themselves whether the minister is telling the truth.
Peter Sellers,
The PAP govt. would rather spend billions on self aggrandizement than on improving the welfare of society. Every scheme that the govt. implements start with the questions: How can the scheme pay for itself, or how much money can we make? The poor are being treated like lepers, to be hidden away and treated as non-existent. Everything is reduced to dollars and cents; numbers. Eventually they will reduce Singapore to zero!
This is how I see it.
In UK, education from receptions to ‘A’ level is free and so does medical services. Decades ago, 90% of UK students who got into Oxbridge and Russell Group Universities were mainly from private schools (fees paying, from receptions to A level – some fees can charge up to £13,500 a year) in order to rectify this situation the Labour and conservative government spent substantial amount of money and effort to assist state schools to narrow such gap, check this link below and you can see what are the progress Grammar Schools (accept students from age 11 to 18) have made for the past few years in UK:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12168129
Please note Colchester Royal Grammar School is only at the top notch for the past 3 to 4 years (can’t remember the exact time). I was at one of the top Grammar schools (King Edward VI Grammar School, Chelmsford-27 students went to Oxbridge last year) opening evening last year as my 2nd son is going to year 7 (sec 1 in Singapore) this September, the principal addressed the crowd and said this to us, “I urge all those who can afford to go private school please give the chances to those who can’t!”, a true educationist indeed and why did he say so? As the initial and fundamental intention to the Grammar Schools are to assist children who are from lower socio-economic backgrounds to get into Oxbridge or The Russell Group Universities (similar to the Ivy League in USA). Compare the scenario in Singapore, everything is measured in dollars and cents, will the poor be able to get out of the poverty trap if the government is not going to help?
I think MOM should provide free education include text books to all poor students (in UK text books are provided free to all students), the rich and elites can go to private school like Hwa Chong or RI, keep those good public schools (up till A level) and make sure the poor are not being rejected to these school because of monies, assist children from lower socio-economic backgrounds to get into these schools, as education is the only way to eradicate poverty in society!
@peters,
I agree with you for what u have said. Lower-income’s children need more than money…
I studied in Clementi Town Secondary. Usually Normal 5 students never made it to polytechnice or pre-u in my school.
Surprise, my batch was the first who score so many individuals who go to poly and then JC or pre-U. Its was because of peers influence.My neighbourhood was also pretty bad with street gangs, drunken parents, loan sharks and family quarrels. I used to live in a 2-room flat and then 3-room flat. Now we live in 5-room flats and I have my own condo.
As i believe, govt should spend more money and ideas on how to give the lower-income a chance or a better enviroment to pursue their studies.
So the govt must start at the primary level, instead of starting at the tertiary level.
But sdaly, our govt only interest is in identitfy potiential talent and totally neglected that education start at the lowest level.
This is the original post I did in Tattler’s blog, try to give a clearer picture of UK’s education for children from aged 4 to 18, hope this helps;
Having been living in UK for the past 8 years with my wife and 4 children, I’m shock to know that Hwa Chong is charging $300/month and Dunman High is $37/month.
Our children’s education and medical care are provided free by UK government, free does not equal to inferior standard, my eldest son is studying in one of the Grammar Schools (age 11 to 18) in UK, and the school standard is quite similar to Hwa Chong, the only different is ‘free’. My eldest daughter had also studied in one of the Grammar schools before and is currently doing Bio Medical Sciences in University and do note that her PSLE result was only 217 points and the result could only bring her to a neighbourhood Secondary school express stream at that time, we left Singapore when she was in Secondary one. She is a late bloomer and her dream profession is to become a doctor and she is working very hard to achieve her dream provided she could get a Second upper which I think she is able to, I wonder what would become of her if she were in Singapore.
Some of my son’s classmates are from poor background and they were given free lunch in order to keep them in school (since education is free in UK and the class starts at 8.45am and end at 3.35pm), please also take note that the class ratio is 1: 25 or fewer and is only single session in every state school. The UK government is trying very hard to help these children to achieve academically or to master a skill after their GCSE.
The youngest two are in year 6 and year 5 respectively, public school as well, the elder one is going to take his grade 5 violin in March and the younger one is doing grade 3 as well. The elder one (second son) has taken the entrance examination in one of the top Grammar Schools in UK, the school admitted only 112 students every year and 27 of them went to Oxbridge last year! The principal mentioned this to all parents during the open day: I urge all those who can afford to go private school please give the chances to those who can’t! I like and admire this kind of attitude from this sort of principal, a true educationist! Compare the scenario in Singapore, everything is measured in dollars and cents, will the poor be able to get out of the poverty trap?
May I suggest this to MOE, Singapore is rich enough to provide world class education to all our citizens, we can afford to have a single session for each and every public school, cut the present ratio of teacher to students to 1: 25 for secondary school and sixth form, 1: 30 or fewer in primary school with teacher cum an assistant teacher (2 teachers in 1 class). Provide free education include text books to all poor students (in UK text books are provided free to all students), the rich can go to private school like Hwa Chong, cut the funding to this elite school, but keep those good public schools and make sure the poor are not being rejected to these school because of lack of monies, assist them to get into these school, as education is the only way to eradicate poverty in society!
The poor use of such statistics will never pass any MNC meeting. Its disappointing it is being used at the national level .. :(
There is really something wrong with our education system if not why do we have now handful of sex maniacs in the MOE because it is now no more known as Ministry of Education ,now it is widely known as Ministry of Error.
The level and depth of discussion of these multi-million ministers are no different from my organisation monthly depart meeting discussions.
I wonder – what makes them deserve the pay?
Looks like the Education Minister is in need of educational lessons on statistics. Maybe he should consider taking private tuition from Mr Leong Sze Hian?
I think it is socially pernicious to suggest that education and meritocracy can guarantee social mobility, so that anyone who doesn’t climb up the social ladder is deemed lazy, incapable and entirely responsible for his/her predicament.
It takes a mature State to admit that there are other factors involved, including a complex mix of social class, gender and ethnicity, with corresponding measures aimed at improving social equity. Developed countries facing similar issues of social inequity such as the UK, have for a long time seen this as a problem of social class. Sociologists have also been providing statistics to show how one’s socioeconomic background is often the strongest predeterminer for social mobility. It is not only a matter of money, but includes the form of cultural skills acquired from within your family (eg the kind of English you speak at home, the books your parents bought for you, how familiar you are with a scholastic environment and answering questions from figures of authority). Some children simply do not have these nurturing environments.
The statistics quoted by Dr Ng, shows that there are individuals who have risen against their circumstances to do well. However, it also demonstrates that those from better socioeconomic backgrounds are advantaged to do better in school, otherwise why would these individuals be in the minority? Does it mean that those others who did not rise up were all unintelligent or did not work hard enough, or innately unsuited for academic life? This would be a dangerous claim to make.
It is not simply a matter of distributive justice by providing scholarships and bursaries to ensure that everyone can afford a good education (by the way most govt scholars are from wealthy backgrounds who do not need the money, it is akin to using taxpayers’ money to pay for the education of the kid living in 6th Avenue whose father has 3 cars). This is by far the easiest policy to implement. There are also associational and relational forms of justice (eg access to public services, how teachers help people from non-english speaking homes learn english better etc). The challenge now is how the Singaporean government undertakes such a task. It certainly doesn’t help by continuing to hide behind a facade that claims that meritocracy and the education system is a level-playing field.