THE vicious circle of meritocracy is such that once those who decry the unfair playing field manage to climb the social ladder, they protect their position to maintain the same quality of life for their offspring, who, in turn, would have inherited an advantageous starting point over their peers ("Has meritocracy changed here?" by Mr Adrian Tan Xi Jing; last Saturday).
This is a reality of meritocracy because it rewards those who have made it, precisely by dangling the carrot from the start.
Policies to level the playing field cannot punish the achievers because this distorts the incentive mechanism which meritocracy runs on.
Instead, policies should help increase the opportunities to the less well-off.
A complete eradication of the imbalance or the complete levelling of the playing field is impossible in real life.
A way to combat the rising tide of elitism as a consequence of meritocracy was echoed by Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, who stressed the need to uphold meritocracy but guard against elitism ("Meritocracy works but beware of elitism: ESM Goh"; July 28, 2013).
We should advance the idea of "compassionate meritocracy", where beneficiaries of meritocracy do not develop a false sense of entitlement, but instead, give back to a system which gave them their achievements in the first place.
Has meritocracy changed here?
MR DELANE Lim's view ("RI students not 'elitist' "; Tuesday) is misconceived. The real issue is whether we are moving away from an inclusive meritocracy.
Meritocracy rejects stratification on the basis of social status, and embraces the differences in people's abilities and the natural hierarchy that flows from it.
A meritocratic system would, therefore, allow people to rise or fall based on their accom-plishments or failures, regardless of their social status.
It should see students from a diverse range of social and economic backgrounds having a roughly equal chance to enter top schools.
This is evidently not the case in our top schools, whose student population is skewed towards those who hail from families of "better" socio-economic status.
But that is unsurprising, and was recognised by Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, who alluded to the fact that well-off families could give their children a head start, compared with the social mobility of the less well off ("Meritocracy works but beware of elitism: ESM Goh"; July 28, 2013).
To create a more inclusive meritocracy, the Government has tried to level the playing field by implementing policies such as the Edusave awards.
However, Nominated MP Eugene Tan has observed that Raffles Institution is now less representative of Singapore than it used to be ("Hot topics at the debate"; May 31 this year), which could indicate that efforts to level the playing field are not achieving their desired effect.
It would be more constructive to engage in a discussion of whether we are moving further away from the "fair" meritocracy we espouse, and what we can and should do to reverse such a trend.
Adrian Tan Xi Jing
ST Forum, 7 Jun 2014
ST Forum, 7 Jun 2014
RI students not 'elitist'
I DISAGREE with Nominated MP Eugene Tan's assertion that Raffles Institution is now less representative of Singapore than it used to be ("Hot topics at the debate"; May 31).
Admissions to RI are based on merit, not socio-economic background.
The school's doors are not shut to the less well-off. The Edusave (Independent Schools) Yearly Awards provide financial assistance to students in independent schools, making up the fee difference between independent schools and government ones.
In my last three years of interaction with RI students as a youth trainer, I have observed at first hand that not all the students come from well-to-do families. While some students may come from more privileged backgrounds, that does not make them "elitist".
Through service learning programmes, internships and community-based projects, these students learn to empathise with those from different socio-economic backgrounds. They also interact with young people from less privileged backgrounds and neighbourhood schools through inter-school conferences and workshops.
I also disagree that the tuition afforded to students from middle- to higher-income families is the main differentiating factor in academic performance.
The report ("Private tuition spreads beyond Asia's wealthy"; Aug 7, 2012) quoted studies, polls and other sources as saying that 97 per cent of all Singaporean students receive tutoring, and the trend transcends socio-economic backgrounds. If this is indeed the case, then tuition, or the ability to afford it, does not determine a student's academic future. Evidently, there are other factors at play.
University of Pennsylvania psychologist Angela Duckworth identified "grit", or the "tendency to sustain interest in and effort towards very long-term goals", as the main trait that determines academic success and success in life.
Instead of focusing on family background, perhaps we should look towards building character and developing socio-emotional competencies in young people to equip them with the grit to overcome difficulties and attain success in life.
Delane Lim
ST Forum, 3 Jun 2014
ST Forum, 3 Jun 2014
Top schools must do more to fight elitism
MR DELANE Lim ("RI students not 'elitist'"; June 3) has misunderstood the thrust of my remarks in Parliament on May 30 on the debate on the President's Address.
While I fully endorse the policy goal of keeping upward pathways open to all, I asked whether our education system acts as a source of inequality and reinforces social immobility. This is crucial as education is viewed as a powerful social leveller, the primary vehicle by which one can ascend the ladder of opportunity.
However, with the different peaks of excellence premised on differentiation by ability- and school-based streaming, and by different types of schools with different fees and curricula, our education system may generate segregating effects that reinforce social immobility.
Our education and meritocratic system must be premised on equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. But the real question is whether every student, regardless of socio-economic background, is able to access the opportunities available.
Even as we seek to develop each child to his full potential, are we paying too high a price for that? Is there a more equitable trade-off in which greater social equity does not compromise academic standards and ideals? Can we leaven our meritocracy to ameliorate the harsh workings of the winner-takes-all mentality and the win-at-all-costs mindset?
Raffles Institution occupies a special place in our education system and must resolutely guard against elitism. In this regard, RI must re-double its effort to enthuse, appeal and attract more high-calibre students from neighbourhood schools and under-represented groups such as Malay students. Hence, I welcome my alma mater's efforts to attract more students from low-income households ("RI to refine scheme to draw lower income pupils"; June 4). But scholarships alone are not enough.
RI must be appealing and inspiring for the brand of holistic education it offers, the values it imbues in its students and the ethos of public service carefully nurtured. My specific concern is whether RI's ethos have fundamentally changed, making it less attractive to students from lower socio-economic backgrounds.
What left an indelible mark on my peers and me from my formative school days in RI in the mid-1980s was how our very diverse home backgrounds did not matter in our striving for academic and co-curricular excellence.
Our meritocracy and education system have a vital role in ensuring that Singapore is not flat-lining on social mobility and inclusivity. Our top schools must pay greater attention to the larger sense of purpose and values expected of them. In particular, RI must continue to be a beacon of hope of Singapore's meritocracy, reflecting growth with equity and inclusiveness, and of Singaporeans progressing in tandem with our nation.
Eugene K.B. Tan
Nominated Member of Parliament
ST Forum, 20 Jun 2014
Nominated Member of Parliament
ST Forum, 20 Jun 2014
Understanding meritocracy
In a recent Parliament session, Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Eugene Tan spoke extensively on the role of meritocracy in Singapore, reigniting a debate that has captured public interest in recent years. Long considered an integral part of the Republic’s success and development, meritocracy has increasingly come under fire, with many claiming it has instead created inequality and elitism.
In a recent Parliament session, Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Eugene Tan spoke extensively on the role of meritocracy in Singapore, reigniting a debate that has captured public interest in recent years. Long considered an integral part of the Republic’s success and development, meritocracy has increasingly come under fire, with many claiming it has instead created inequality and elitism.
By Pravin Prakash, TODAY, 25 Jun 2014
But do critics of meritocracy even understand what it means? Given the importance of meritocracy as a governing principle of Singapore, it is surprising we have not given it detailed study, often expecting it to produce or offer results that lie apart from its value system.
IT’S A PRINCIPLE, NOT A SYSTEM
Mr Donald Low, in the recent book Hard Choices — Challenging the Singapore Consensus, has identified meritocracy as “a core principle of governance in Singapore” and that it is “as close as anything gets to being a national ideology”.
Mr Low refers to the meritocracy principle as one in which “we try to equalise opportunities not outcomes, and we allocate rewards on the basis of an individual’s merit or his abilities”. Everyone has an opportunity to succeed on the same tests and challenges, and the best is selected, regardless of who that person is.
Similarly, Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong once described meritocracy as a “value system by which advancement in society is based on an individual’s ability, performance and achievement”.
It is important we identify meritocracy as a principle rather than a system of government. Making this distinction allows us to examine the various facets of the system without attributing all of it to meritocracy. By extension, it also allows us to study the principle of meritocracy largely in isolation, without burdening it with systemic failures or successes.
Singaporeans often look at meritocracy as an ideology that offers social equality in Singapore. This explains why those unhappy with perceived inequality and limited social mobility are blaming meritocracy for failing them. However, the meritocratic principle offers equal opportunities, not outcomes. Merit-based selection is based on the notion of non-discrimination: Blind to colour, creed and class.
The principle is largely unconcerned with inherent inequalities, a fact that has largely gone unnoticed in our celebration of meritocracy as a national ideology.
Instead, as noted by British author Matt Cavanagh, meritocracy is “less interested in giving everyone a chance to earn the right to a job” and more focused on “revealing” the ideal candidate. Hence, meritocracy is a principle of efficiency, not equality. It identifies the best cogs for a machine to ensure optimal efficiency.
Thus, when viewed as a principle of ensuring efficiency and unburdened with having to create equality, meritocracy is a fundamental basis for Singapore’s success.
Meritocracy has promoted a competitive environment by providing equal opportunities for a driven and ambitious populace to continually strive for excellence and success. This is what meritocracy as a principle should be judged on. As a governing principle, it has created a nation fixated on growth and development.
STRENGTHENING MERITOCRACY
What then of the social mobility that existed in Singapore in the post-independence era? Was not that too a success of a meritocratic system?
In truth, social mobility was essentially a positive by-product of the growth stimulated by meritocracy. Today, Singapore is a developed nation and competition at the top is fiercer than before. A large middle class is the result and upward social mobility is harder, though equality of opportunities has been largely unchanged. So clearly, this does not mean the meritocratic principle has failed. Rather, it shows that the system of governance needs to evolve beyond meritocracy to address inequality to a greater degree than before.
Recent government initiatives, such as the creation of the Early Childhood Development Agency to raise quality standards of early childhood programmes, are a good start. More can be done to create an integrated ecosystem of early childhood care and education in Singapore, so all children here have access to high-quality pre-school education.
Apart from a focus on equality, the system needs to strengthen the application of meritocracy. To prevent elitism, there must be backward social mobility. Those who have succeeded cannot take it for granted.
The current system in Singapore, whether in the public or private sector, identifies individuals with high potential early and provides them with scholarships and opportunities. Employers must actively evaluate the development of these talents and ensure that they continue to grow and perform at a promising rate.
More importantly, the accelerated growth path accorded to these scholars should not inadvertently stifle the development of late bloomers who excel within certain fields.
Singaporeans must be given opportunities to succeed and excel at different levels to prevent stagnation or even degeneration. This will strengthen the meritocratic principle within the system, creating greater efficiency and productivity.
In his speech in Parliament, Mr Tan questioned if “another Singaporean family today, in the same position that (his) parents were in, would be able to see their life chances and those of their children improve in one generation”. This is a question that the system in Singapore must address and one that requires a systemic evolution within and beyond meritocracy.
Pravin Prakash is pursuing his master’s degree in political science at the National University of Singapore, where he also tutors undergraduates.
Pravin Prakash is pursuing his master’s degree in political science at the National University of Singapore, where he also tutors undergraduates.
No comments:
Post a Comment