Talking Point:
What has 'meritocracy' done to Singapore's education since it
allows elitism; resentment; to breed? In fact, it hampers social
cohesiveness as it widens our social gap.
If you recall what happened in early 2008 when a principal of a
well-known school lashed hurtful, even discouraging comments at a
corhort of Secondary 5 students, disappointment were aired all over
the place and the media even ran a decently negative story on the
fact of life of most Sec 5 students upon graduation.
That same year and time, I was abroad completing my
undergraduate studies when my schoolmate had requested me to run an
internal story in my University's papers on this issue. Honest, I
had long forgotten and wanted to forget what the Singapore
education was like despite having been trapped in it for 12+ years,
and instatenously I was forced to re-accept, re-knidle and remember
the hurtful phase I've been through. All because I had taken that
route.
While all these has come to past, I would never forget the
treatment I recieved both from my relatives, teachers and
schoolmates; a bitter taste of life. I hereby warrant for
reformative push in Singapore's General Education system as it does
not serve its main purpose of strengthening social cohesiveness and
providing a platform to educate Singaporeans in a manner that would
empower them to become creative thinkers, opinionated individuals
and enterprizing business owners who are keen on enhancing the
quality of life and social integration.
What the Education System does is widen social gaps starting
with individual streaming, grouping of elites and later labelling
individuals with hurtful, risid comments that is sin in
unfortunately, Christ's eye.
Sadly, the current system is only aimed at creating a wealth of
technicians able to work but not think like Bill Gates; Steve Jobs;
Mark Wilson - even David Copperfield, rather people apt at
monotonous reading than intelligent and critical thinking.
Very unlike the Australian education system; International school
system whereby youths, to be precise - teenagers, are allowed to
explore their interests and strengths first before commiting
themselves to their respective field of study. And whether is it a
hands-on technical course or pure academia, they excel in it.
Today, our system has come to a point whereby a youth with
a decent 'C6' gets to enter an Engineering course in a
polytechnic; less-than-average grades to seek
solace in NUS and NTU's Engineering faculty, are we going
to pay homage to the 1970s Hotel New World crash? When ironically
popular skills course like Mass Communications requires you to
score at least a B3 to be considered
entry with a need to pass math (when its not a requirement in the
practical world of comms)? Think people, think - is this proper and
can be accepted? Can Singapore afford to have nuclear scientists;
nuclear technicians with a borderline pass in Math - disturbing and
frightening, right? Engineering should not be viewed as a dumping
ground because lives are at stake.
As for myself, the path I've been through failed to take me on a
route to becoming a doctor but a lifestyle writer, while majority
of my classmates - sadly, 90% - became salesgirls and young
mothers, with the youngest bearing a child before recieving the key
to adulthood. Is this the path most Normal students need to take as
a price for neglecting their primary 6 examinations? I personally
believe that youths could have a brighter future if offered an
equal-education opportunity to discover their interests and
strengths prior to commiting to a specialized course of study.
In conclusion, I've this to say:12 is too tender a age to have
your path cut out for you by the system which has to change. For
your future and your child's, think now or never.
JM2C, WH. Whether you like it or not, its just mu two cents, my
voice and my words.
P.S. Here's a link to an expired topic that's been debated
before:
http://politics.sgforums.com/forums/8/topics/298141?page=4
i sympathise with what you have been through. i share the same
feelings, but before i go on to throw cold water on you about how
the entire system here works,
we should first always remind ourselves that each of those who gave
up since their youth are not because they are they are less smart
than us. first of all, do you seriously think that the current
system is a meritocratic one? do you really think that you & I
having graduate degrees are considered successful? if you truly
think so, then you have fallen into the same trap that this
ruling party has laid out for us.
the lower 'reserves' as someone said, are not any less capable
than us, it is just that they are not allowed to discover their
interest and strength before their interest is killed off
totally. by school ranking, class ranking and so on. they may
even be doing better than us under another country's system.
it is merely a perception created over the years (at
the expense of other types of talents) that people with memory
skills are the most important. therefore, we as the upper
'reserves' has nothing that suggests we are more capable than the
lower 'reserves', just like there is also absolutely nothing that
suggest those not classified as reserves are indeed that
smarter.
all right, now for the cold hard truth. it is not only the
education system that is working like this. it is the entire system
from education to work to yes, even politics
which also works that way. we are trained from young to learn
everything right up to university. in the end we are not
particularly excellent in any.
however, every child, every person has different strength,
different interests but
under this current system, they are not only not allowed to
flourish, their perception
of what it means of doing well is seriously distorted in their
early years and so
if reproducing classroom notes within that 2-3 hours of exam is not
their strength,
they will be penalised for life. memory and ability to multi-task
becomes a priority
in this country so it carries through to life as working adults as
well.
don't get me wrong. i am not saying people with such skillsets
are not important. it is just that it is viewed as the highest
of capabilities and thus the most important on this island. in
fact, the way how everything is run here, from school ranking,
class ranking, job requirements, facts selectively presented in
parliament and on TV makes it highly suspicious that such a
perception of what is defined as capable is intricately crafted for
the rest of us. you can even smell a rat that in their pursuit of
this claim of superiority over the others, even if singaporeans and
children with all other talents are marginalised and could risk
losing interest to learn altogether early in their life, it doesn't
bother them much.
so it goes from here that people with the skills of being able
to handle many different tasks are valued much more and thus the
monetary system to reward the individual is also made to be that
way. the ability to multi-task often happens to be the same group
of people who have good memory. managers become the most
important position in every industry in this country and what most
aim for.
but in society, various jobs requires different skillsets of
which many takes much more than just memory skills or multi-tasking
skills. in engineering, we need people who are curious, adventurous
and willing to try things, even break things. something may need to
first fail or break before some other things are discovered. we
also need to constantly question, challenge the status quo for any
breakthrough.
experience and specialising is also important. some of my
retiring european colleagues are still working on the same project
that they have started on when they first joined the company after
graduation. but the way the highest level managers (govt) up there
changes focus area every 10 years means tens of years of work
experience will be wiped out. retraining will always be required.
excuse for the need of foreign talents can also be
made legitimate.
in creative arts, it requires yet a very different set of skills
and raw talent to produce beautiful pieces. i am not a creative
person and so am not a position to comment on what is required to
be in this industry. one thing is for sure though. both fields
require things to be done one thing at a time, frequently with good
precision for engineering and i believe finding the right touch in
creative arts.
so if you have noticed, many govt organisations always asked for
graduates with
first class or second class upper. you may have also heard this
before, 'degree holders are only suited to washing test
tubes.' again, don't be mistaken, i am not saying first class/
second class honours are not good. it is just to show you how
myopic and simplistic the selection process of this country is, in
all aspects of society. all these therefore creates the class of
what i call false eliticism or exam meritocracy.
i would like to clarify that true eliticism and true meritocracy
is good. why? you may
ask. this is because if the people concerned are true elites, it
benefits society. of
course, it is also necessary that they come with the compassion to
share the wealth. all right, back to the discussion on talent &
ability. if they are really that capable, everyone will benefit. at
least in economic sense. but the fact is, for the past 20 years,
the average singaporean quality of life has not improved much.
not only we are left to fend for our own in the very basics of
human needs in this 'first world society'; education, retirement,
healthcare and housing, using what we earn monthly. the worst of
this is; come crisis times, the very job that helps us take care of
the above listed burdens in life is at high risk of loss for good.
and the excuse given to us is; singapore is subjected to 'external
factors beyond our control'. it is only due to the mainstream media
that huge mistakes in policies and glaring fundamental flaws are
swept under the carpet but singaporeans are not that stupid not to
take notice at all.
and whenever election time comes in the 90's if you remember, we
are always reminded that this or that candidate is a president
scholar or straight A student, 20 years ago that is.as you can
see, true performance is not relevant at all to what these
people did 20-30 years ago in their exams. what we need instead is
adventurous school drop outs like steve jobs. apple now has a
market capitalisation of more than 300 billion, more than the gdp
of s'pore and has created some of the best products and become the
most valuable technological company on planet earth
<Henry Ford's Model T ushered in the modern assembly line,
made the automobile affordable, Yet he had very little
formal education. Thomas Edison's formal education ended when he
was seven years old. His teacher said young Edison had an "addled"
mind and was a poor student. His mother homeschooled him. Edison
did pretty well for himself later: He brought the world the
incandescent light bulb, the phonograph, and hundreds of other
inventions.> quoted.
therefore, if true eliticism and performance exist in this
country. we may be like japan, with the largest carmaking and
multimedia industry in the world. we may be like south korea, they
have samsung, the world largest consumer electronics company, not
to forget hyundai and LG. we may be even like taiwan who has the
world largest TSMC and foxconn, in semiconductor and contract
manufacturing respectively. you can easily find similar
instances in other industries. this is not to mention US & the
other european countries which are worlds apart in many sectors of
industry and most importantly in how they take care of the basic
needs of their citizens.
so to wrap up, let me give you an example. if these people are
truly as outstanding as they have painted themselves to be or as
capable as suggested in the way they have rewarded themselves, the
interest rates we get on our cpf would be 10% per annum instead.
now they cannot afford to give this interest rate. why? they, like
any normal beings has succumbed, two years ago, to the primitive
impulses similar to those found in animals & cavemen. they went
on a buying spree on financial assets in citigroup, UBS, merrill
lynch and barclays in 2008, a few months before the lehman
debacle.
let us take ourselves back to april 2008; ***** the trend has
been a rising one, this recent setback in price is a perfect
opportunity to buy and so it seems logical for them to linearly
project prices into the sky. anyway, star analysts in major
investment banks in US have all mentioned this is just a
correction. 'Dow Jones will go to 30,000' and so we now know that
the blue sky was what they saw a few months after they have bought
in.
now with the benefit of hindsight, of course we can say anything
we want but a closer look at the situation at that time reveals
that the claim of never being able to have foreseen the collapse of
major investment banks in US, is in fact a convenient untruth. the
number of experts in US, warning just before the crisis of a bank
meltdown due to a burst bubble in US real estate, though few, were
giving sufficient valid reasons for the danger ahead, not less that
they are past nobel economics prize winners. although they are not
in the thick of action in markets, such warnings should serve well
enough for anyone not to go on a buying spree like that.
furthermore, these people handling our money are supposed to be
that good (4xobama's salary), aren't they?
<all these happened because for the most part, consumers
judge prices of rice and clothing consciously according to their
needs and means but when human beings value financial
assets, they must contend with a debilitating lack of
knowledge and feelings of uncertainty. unconsciously, they contend
with these judgements in sympathy with or in reaction to the
opinions and behaviour of others. this surrender of responsibility
makes them participants, which is not a reasoning entity.>
quoted
safety in numbers works well for the cavemen. in financial
markets, it often brings the opposite result. after all, everyone
see the same market commentaries, read the same newspapers, analyse
the same economic numbers, look at the same stock indices everyday
in such markets, when it is so obvious, it is obviously wrong. it
appears that it would have been much better even if they have
stayed put and not bought or sold anything. but in the end, we are
made to pay for their mistakes.
therefore, after 10 years of compulsory education with rules set
by someone else which serves to benefit themselves, we are now
already at work and we cannot reverse what we have been through in
school but it is still not too late to do something for our
children. true, the content of the education here is not too bad
but the philosophy behind the motivation of discovering 'talents'
in the process and the objective of what is set out to achieve
ultimately in a person's education life span is far from ideal. we
need to ask ourselves whether school rankings, class rankings
especially that it is based mainly on examinations , is
necessary.
yes indeed, we are accountable for our own lives. we have the
freedom of choice.
in a few weeks time, we can express this choice so that we can set
ourselves free for good and most importantly with the possibility
of rewriting the rules for all future generations of singaporeans
so that they can maximise his/her own strength and who can
contribute towards a better future for us all and not just carrying
a piece of paper that indicate that few hours of memory excellence
during our youthful years. these people affected by our choice will
be our children, our grandchildren. each of them will be different.
it is not possible that every one of them will be 'this
successful'(becoming a scholar), or even 'as successful as us'
(graduating with a degree), if we even consider this as successful.
let us not put them through what we have been through.