This has always been a sensitive topic.
The elite with the assistance of their family background and money would be more educated, more successful and earn more money. Some may not agree with this statement.
But then this is not something that occurs only here but in many parts of the world.
The rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer.
There is a very fine line between elitism and meritocracy. Intelligence and academic excellence is not hereditary nor genetic. But having money helps. With elitism comes better resources, opportunities, advantage and privileges in life. The elite does not always start life with common folks on equal footing.
If a child of an elite family is not very bright, he or she would be provided with opportunities that the non elite could not provide financially.
I have known too many cases of where the children were not academically gifted and yet, with the help of numerous expensive tutors, were able to pull in average passable results.
Cannot get into the local university? Money talks. The elite can enrol in a foreign university. Besides the prestige that comes with graduating from a foreign university, foreign grads are treated better at work.
Scholarships bounded with bond to the company or government after graduation? Daddy and mummy can afford to pay the money to break the bond.
My sister was one of those rare ones who were given a peek into elitism. She was the crème de la crème in her primary school and was granted admission to an elite, top secondary all girls school.
There, she was just average. She was no longer the top student. Nor the top 5. She was just average.
She was considered average poor, compared to many of her classmates. Most of her classmates and schoolmates lived in private or landed property. Very few lived in government housing apartments. Most have pocket money many times hers.
Most of them have cars and maids. And they go for luxury overseas holidays at least once once a year. She didn't.
But she developed this snotty and snobbish behavior and superior attitude in life. She thought she was an elite and also spent like one.
When she was studying in UK, her monthly expenses were more than UK$4k, much more than the expenses of our whole family. We had to scrimp, save and starve when she was abroad studying.
Being born into elitism has its advantages and almost ensures a good life.
But then life is not always fair. Who ever said that life is fair? It's not our choice or decision as to whether we are born into elitism.
Oh, why was I not born into the elite?
-------------------------
The Straits Times
21 Aug 2008
Elitist danger in S'pore education
I READ with interest Mr Zakir Hussain's article last Friday, 'Meritocracy's hidden danger' which gives a revealing insight into Singapore's brand of meritocracy.
The article states that about 53 per cent of Public Service Commission scholarships go to those who live in private property.
While there is general acquiescence that these scholarships are indeed awarded on the basis of academic performance and individual achievement alone, the preponderance of the socially privileged among them merits scrutiny.
These students largely hail from the crème de la crème of schools and have benefited from the various schemes that cater to the academically talented, such as the Education Ministry's Gifted Education Programme.
Their dominant social status arising from higher household incomes suggests that they possess the cultural capital required to 'make it' in life, as nurtured by their parents who are likely to have attained qualifications at the tertiary level.
In their scholastic journey, this group of students are likely to be enrolled in the Integrated Programme where, since 2004, they have been allowed to bypass the O-level examinations, in favour of taking the A Levels at the end of a six-year course.
This is a manifestation of greater elitism being built into the education system, where the same elite minority continue to receive value-added education throughout their schooling years at the expense of vast amounts of public funds.
As a result, Singapore's education system, which has always been held up as a model of social mobility for all, is attenuated because one group benefits from a distinct advantage over the others. The public perception that there is an inherent link between students from wealthier households and high academic achievement is pervasive.
Over the years, there have also been concerns about the attitudes of these students who are among the best and brightest and who are likely to secure positions of pre-eminence in society in the future. The reason for this stems from the fact that there have been several scholars who are known to have broken their government bonds in favour of more lucrative job offers, which smacks of individualistic competition and selfishness, among other factors.
There is the danger of a dichotomy developing in an increasingly stratified Singapore society, exacerbated by widening income gaps where the mentality of 'us versus them' prevails.
By then, the people's faith in our so-called meritocratic system would have shattered.
Muhammad Farouq Osman
-------------------------
The Straits Times
15 Aug 2008
Meritocracy's hidden danger
By Zakir Hussain
WHEN I first read about communism in a youth magazine at the age of 11, I thought it was a fantastic idea.
I was struck by the simplicity of Marx's slogan - 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' - believing it to be the fairest way of allocating, and rewarding, work.
Of course, I was shot down by my friends, and understandably so, for communists were evil, even in 1990. Their ideology was being discredited as the Soviet Union, the world's first communist state, was disintegrating.
As I grew older and learnt more about how the world worked, a better slogan emerged, even if it didn't have quite the same ring.
This was: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability.' I still believe that this is, by and large, a fair way for a society to organise itself.
Most people know this principle as meritocracy, a system in which social status and pedigree matter less than merit in determining who gets how much or what.
Singapore has made meritocracy a key principle of governance, giving everyone as similar a chance as possible to stretch himself, in school and at work, in the hope that so long as he is willing to work hard, he will succeed.
To help everyone get to the same starting line, the Government has made education universal, with bursaries and scholarships readily available for those with talent but without the finances.
A good number of Singaporeans from the poorest of backgrounds have made it to the highest ranks of their respective professions within the space of one generation.
But such mobility seems more elusive today, especially when there are signs pointing to a growing divide in incomes between those at the top end and those at the bottom.
The question that begs asking is: Will meritocracy, at least as we understand it today, still be an ideal that finds broad support among people here - or will it go the way of communism?
After all, the man who coined the word meritocracy 50 years ago, British sociologist and Labour Party bigwig Michael Young, did so to mock the idea of a society run purely on merit.
Young invented the term in his satirical work - The Rise Of The Meritocracy, 1870-2033: An Essay On Education And Equality.
A sociological fantasy, the slim book portrays a sinister, highly stratified society organised around intelligence-testing and intensive educational selection. A system of rigid tests determines one's social standing, with those scoring highest filling the most important positions and reaping the most rewards. As a result, a strict hierarchy of merit is created and maintained.
Over time, however, what appears to be a fair and just system becomes rigid and ruthless. By 2033, Britain has come to be governed by a brilliant elite of 5 per cent of the population, who feel their social inferiors are also inferior in education and intelligence. The test-based education system, it turns out, is simply the centuries-old class system in sheep's clothing.
Lacking access to the best schools, underprivileged children routinely do badly in examinations. The disadvantaged thus remain at the bottom of the social ladder, unable to break out of the poverty trap.
This outcome leads to widespread grievances and uprisings against an elite that feels superior to, and regards with contempt, all those outside it.
While the book may be fiction, views such as these are not.
In America, for instance, there are those who regard the poor as incapable of being economically productive, and worse, fully responsible for their own predicament.
Understandably, it can be tempting for those who are more fortunate to jump to such conclusions about the 'others'.
But danger lies that way.
In a paper published this year, Assistant Professor Kenneth Paul Tan of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy argues that Singapore's meritocratic system 'has been practised so extremely that it is starting to show signs of becoming a victim of its own success'.
'As the economic and political elite are rewarded with larger prizes, a vast and visible inequality of outcomes will replace the incentive effect with a sense of resentment, helplessness, social disengagement, and even envy among those who perceive themselves as systematically disadvantaged,' he notes.
Dr Tan argues that there are factors brought about by globalisation which can lead to the unravelling of this meritocracy, notably a yawning income gap where highly mobile professionals command First World pay while less-skilled citizens have to compete with low-wage workers from the region.
When these low wages seem intractable, people find it harder to have confidence in the system. The Internet provides a ready avenue for them to articulate their grievances openly, and the country's openness to foreign talent has made some feel that they have fewer prospects, and unfairly so, in their own country.
The Government will try to manage these factors, but it will not be easy.
In recent years, government leaders have cautioned people against succumbing to the politics of envy because it will drive a wedge in society.
To their credit, officials have also attempted to refine the definition of merit and patch holes that an emphasis on academic merit may have created.
In education, for instance, the meanings of talent and success have been broadened. There are now schools to nurture talent in sports and the arts, and diploma and degree courses in such fields as digital media and technology, and the creative fields such as design and fashion.
To help the lower-income group, there are schemes like the Workfare Income Supplement aimed at boosting the wages of the bottom 20 per cent of workers.
These come on top of bursaries for children from lower-income homes as well as a range of measures to help the poor.
Entry to the upper echelons of public service is far from closed to those from lower-income families. A good number of public sector scholarships still go to students from poorer backgrounds, even if those from better-off homes are rather over-represented.
Where 80 per cent of people live in HDB flats, only some 47 per cent of Public Service Commission scholarship recipients this year do. Some 27 per cent are in private, non-landed property, and the other 26 per cent live in landed property.
It is a distortion former A*Star chief Philip Yeo hinted at recently when he said scholarships could 'uplift' students from poorer families, and that if two applicants had equally exceptional grades, he would award a scholarship to the one from a humbler household.
The Public Service Commission, for its part, has maintained that it awards scholarships 'strictly on merit, regardless of family background', and if there were two equally deserving applicants, both would be offered scholarships.
This emphasis on merit and fair play has helped to ensure racial and religious harmony because minorities feel they have an equal stake and equal chances in this country, even if imperfections exist.
But if those who have gained from this system turn up their noses at those who lag behind, meritocracy as we know it today will not be the only victim.
Disdain for the poor is the hidden danger that lurks in meritocracy.
The elite with the assistance of their family background and money would be more educated, more successful and earn more money. Some may not agree with this statement.
But then this is not something that occurs only here but in many parts of the world.
The rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer.
There is a very fine line between elitism and meritocracy. Intelligence and academic excellence is not hereditary nor genetic. But having money helps. With elitism comes better resources, opportunities, advantage and privileges in life. The elite does not always start life with common folks on equal footing.
If a child of an elite family is not very bright, he or she would be provided with opportunities that the non elite could not provide financially.
I have known too many cases of where the children were not academically gifted and yet, with the help of numerous expensive tutors, were able to pull in average passable results.
Cannot get into the local university? Money talks. The elite can enrol in a foreign university. Besides the prestige that comes with graduating from a foreign university, foreign grads are treated better at work.
Scholarships bounded with bond to the company or government after graduation? Daddy and mummy can afford to pay the money to break the bond.
My sister was one of those rare ones who were given a peek into elitism. She was the crème de la crème in her primary school and was granted admission to an elite, top secondary all girls school.
There, she was just average. She was no longer the top student. Nor the top 5. She was just average.
She was considered average poor, compared to many of her classmates. Most of her classmates and schoolmates lived in private or landed property. Very few lived in government housing apartments. Most have pocket money many times hers.
Most of them have cars and maids. And they go for luxury overseas holidays at least once once a year. She didn't.
But she developed this snotty and snobbish behavior and superior attitude in life. She thought she was an elite and also spent like one.
When she was studying in UK, her monthly expenses were more than UK$4k, much more than the expenses of our whole family. We had to scrimp, save and starve when she was abroad studying.
Being born into elitism has its advantages and almost ensures a good life.
But then life is not always fair. Who ever said that life is fair? It's not our choice or decision as to whether we are born into elitism.
Oh, why was I not born into the elite?
-------------------------
The Straits Times
21 Aug 2008
Elitist danger in S'pore education
I READ with interest Mr Zakir Hussain's article last Friday, 'Meritocracy's hidden danger' which gives a revealing insight into Singapore's brand of meritocracy.
The article states that about 53 per cent of Public Service Commission scholarships go to those who live in private property.
While there is general acquiescence that these scholarships are indeed awarded on the basis of academic performance and individual achievement alone, the preponderance of the socially privileged among them merits scrutiny.
These students largely hail from the crème de la crème of schools and have benefited from the various schemes that cater to the academically talented, such as the Education Ministry's Gifted Education Programme.
Their dominant social status arising from higher household incomes suggests that they possess the cultural capital required to 'make it' in life, as nurtured by their parents who are likely to have attained qualifications at the tertiary level.
In their scholastic journey, this group of students are likely to be enrolled in the Integrated Programme where, since 2004, they have been allowed to bypass the O-level examinations, in favour of taking the A Levels at the end of a six-year course.
This is a manifestation of greater elitism being built into the education system, where the same elite minority continue to receive value-added education throughout their schooling years at the expense of vast amounts of public funds.
As a result, Singapore's education system, which has always been held up as a model of social mobility for all, is attenuated because one group benefits from a distinct advantage over the others. The public perception that there is an inherent link between students from wealthier households and high academic achievement is pervasive.
Over the years, there have also been concerns about the attitudes of these students who are among the best and brightest and who are likely to secure positions of pre-eminence in society in the future. The reason for this stems from the fact that there have been several scholars who are known to have broken their government bonds in favour of more lucrative job offers, which smacks of individualistic competition and selfishness, among other factors.
There is the danger of a dichotomy developing in an increasingly stratified Singapore society, exacerbated by widening income gaps where the mentality of 'us versus them' prevails.
By then, the people's faith in our so-called meritocratic system would have shattered.
Muhammad Farouq Osman
-------------------------
The Straits Times
15 Aug 2008
Meritocracy's hidden danger
By Zakir Hussain
WHEN I first read about communism in a youth magazine at the age of 11, I thought it was a fantastic idea.
I was struck by the simplicity of Marx's slogan - 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' - believing it to be the fairest way of allocating, and rewarding, work.
Of course, I was shot down by my friends, and understandably so, for communists were evil, even in 1990. Their ideology was being discredited as the Soviet Union, the world's first communist state, was disintegrating.
As I grew older and learnt more about how the world worked, a better slogan emerged, even if it didn't have quite the same ring.
This was: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability.' I still believe that this is, by and large, a fair way for a society to organise itself.
Most people know this principle as meritocracy, a system in which social status and pedigree matter less than merit in determining who gets how much or what.
Singapore has made meritocracy a key principle of governance, giving everyone as similar a chance as possible to stretch himself, in school and at work, in the hope that so long as he is willing to work hard, he will succeed.
To help everyone get to the same starting line, the Government has made education universal, with bursaries and scholarships readily available for those with talent but without the finances.
A good number of Singaporeans from the poorest of backgrounds have made it to the highest ranks of their respective professions within the space of one generation.
But such mobility seems more elusive today, especially when there are signs pointing to a growing divide in incomes between those at the top end and those at the bottom.
The question that begs asking is: Will meritocracy, at least as we understand it today, still be an ideal that finds broad support among people here - or will it go the way of communism?
After all, the man who coined the word meritocracy 50 years ago, British sociologist and Labour Party bigwig Michael Young, did so to mock the idea of a society run purely on merit.
Young invented the term in his satirical work - The Rise Of The Meritocracy, 1870-2033: An Essay On Education And Equality.
A sociological fantasy, the slim book portrays a sinister, highly stratified society organised around intelligence-testing and intensive educational selection. A system of rigid tests determines one's social standing, with those scoring highest filling the most important positions and reaping the most rewards. As a result, a strict hierarchy of merit is created and maintained.
Over time, however, what appears to be a fair and just system becomes rigid and ruthless. By 2033, Britain has come to be governed by a brilliant elite of 5 per cent of the population, who feel their social inferiors are also inferior in education and intelligence. The test-based education system, it turns out, is simply the centuries-old class system in sheep's clothing.
Lacking access to the best schools, underprivileged children routinely do badly in examinations. The disadvantaged thus remain at the bottom of the social ladder, unable to break out of the poverty trap.
This outcome leads to widespread grievances and uprisings against an elite that feels superior to, and regards with contempt, all those outside it.
While the book may be fiction, views such as these are not.
In America, for instance, there are those who regard the poor as incapable of being economically productive, and worse, fully responsible for their own predicament.
Understandably, it can be tempting for those who are more fortunate to jump to such conclusions about the 'others'.
But danger lies that way.
In a paper published this year, Assistant Professor Kenneth Paul Tan of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy argues that Singapore's meritocratic system 'has been practised so extremely that it is starting to show signs of becoming a victim of its own success'.
'As the economic and political elite are rewarded with larger prizes, a vast and visible inequality of outcomes will replace the incentive effect with a sense of resentment, helplessness, social disengagement, and even envy among those who perceive themselves as systematically disadvantaged,' he notes.
Dr Tan argues that there are factors brought about by globalisation which can lead to the unravelling of this meritocracy, notably a yawning income gap where highly mobile professionals command First World pay while less-skilled citizens have to compete with low-wage workers from the region.
When these low wages seem intractable, people find it harder to have confidence in the system. The Internet provides a ready avenue for them to articulate their grievances openly, and the country's openness to foreign talent has made some feel that they have fewer prospects, and unfairly so, in their own country.
The Government will try to manage these factors, but it will not be easy.
In recent years, government leaders have cautioned people against succumbing to the politics of envy because it will drive a wedge in society.
To their credit, officials have also attempted to refine the definition of merit and patch holes that an emphasis on academic merit may have created.
In education, for instance, the meanings of talent and success have been broadened. There are now schools to nurture talent in sports and the arts, and diploma and degree courses in such fields as digital media and technology, and the creative fields such as design and fashion.
To help the lower-income group, there are schemes like the Workfare Income Supplement aimed at boosting the wages of the bottom 20 per cent of workers.
These come on top of bursaries for children from lower-income homes as well as a range of measures to help the poor.
Entry to the upper echelons of public service is far from closed to those from lower-income families. A good number of public sector scholarships still go to students from poorer backgrounds, even if those from better-off homes are rather over-represented.
Where 80 per cent of people live in HDB flats, only some 47 per cent of Public Service Commission scholarship recipients this year do. Some 27 per cent are in private, non-landed property, and the other 26 per cent live in landed property.
It is a distortion former A*Star chief Philip Yeo hinted at recently when he said scholarships could 'uplift' students from poorer families, and that if two applicants had equally exceptional grades, he would award a scholarship to the one from a humbler household.
The Public Service Commission, for its part, has maintained that it awards scholarships 'strictly on merit, regardless of family background', and if there were two equally deserving applicants, both would be offered scholarships.
This emphasis on merit and fair play has helped to ensure racial and religious harmony because minorities feel they have an equal stake and equal chances in this country, even if imperfections exist.
But if those who have gained from this system turn up their noses at those who lag behind, meritocracy as we know it today will not be the only victim.
Disdain for the poor is the hidden danger that lurks in meritocracy.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment