TR EMERITUS

"Lousy school" (like RI) means different things now, compared to the past? (ST, Oct 10) "Generational difference in views of Singapore top schools and their students" "At the Sept 14 session, a microphone picked up comments by Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, calling Progress Singapore Party Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai "illiterate" and questioning how Mr Leong got into the prestigious Raffles Institution (RI), and ribbing that RI must have been a "lousy school" . Dr Balakrishnan is an alumnus of the rival Anglo-Chinese School (ACS). Generational difference on academic elitism Then I realise why. There is a generational difference when it comes to perceptions of academic elitism. When older Singaporeans like Dr Balakrishnan speak of their days in school or their academic achievements, they may be thinking of a time when life seemed to offer a more even playing field. Many of their generation who went to "good" schools here, and then had university degrees and good careers, would have come from diverse backgrounds - including middle-class and working-class backgrounds. Children of hawkers, taxi drivers and labourers are today lawyers, doctors, bankers, and top civil servants and politicians. However, many younger Singaporeans have a different experience. Growing up in the early 2010s and going to a "good" school with the Integrated Programme, my class and cohort looked nothing like the mix of social and economic backgrounds that my relative and others have described. Most of my classmates were, like myself, the children of professionals and university graduates. We had books at home, parents who could understand and help with our homework, provide access to a stable Internet connection and put food on the table. These sound like basics to some, but they are not. So when people throw around language that seems to suggest that the worth of a person is tagged to their school, it rings increasingly like a comment on class rather than educational achievement to me and others around my age. They may not have meant it as such, but my gut reaction of outrage at such comments speaks to a generational difference in how merit is perceived. To me, hearing that someone has gone to a "good school" is more often than not a comment on the person being from a wealthy family with good social connections, than a statement on the person being intelligent and hardworking. Schools have fundamentally changed in terms of their social make-up, and it is no longer accurate to casually equate going to a good school or doing well in school only with intellectual talent. In my experience, family economic and social background is increasingly correlated with going to "good schools". If this becomes more of a trend, our society will be worse off for it. Understanding the issue Social stratification in the school system should be an issue that is addressed and studied, and that begins with schools acknowledging it and beginning to publish socio-economic data on their admissions, to help ensure that Singapore's meritocracy remains one. In 2015, then principal of RI Chan Poh Meng said in a founder's day speech that the school had become insular and not truly representative of Singapore, and catered to students from the upper class of Singapore's society. He used this as a platform to ask his students to give back to the wider community. Top schools and universities here, such as the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University, do not publish admission data by social-economic status and race. This is unlike some top universities in the West, which publish granular details on where their students come from based on area, ethnicity and socio-economic background. For example, the University of Oxford publishes data based on two systems of sorting the financial backgrounds of students by postal code. It then measures this against the United Kingdom average. When asked by the media, local universities are often reluctant or unable to provide us with these numbers." Comment: In this connection, here's an article I wrote on 31 Oct 2018: Why no statistics on scholarships awarded – inequality? I refer to the article “Public Service Commission to explore new tools to select more diverse slate of scholarship holders” (Straits Times, Oct 31). It states that “Singapore’s Public Service Commission (PSC) will explore new tools to ensure that it awards its prestigious scholarship to a more diverse range of students. In an open letter released on Wednesday (Oct 31), PSC chairman Lee Tzu Yang set out the importance of diversity in the public service and how the move is part of the commission’s ongoing efforts to cast its net wide for Singaporeans from all backgrounds. For example, he said, many organisations today use game-based assessments to assess candidates for attributes such as perseverance, learning orientation and risk-avoidance.” All these sounds very good, but shouldn’t the PSC start by giving us some statistics? Are we giving too many scholarships to richer students? In this connection, I would like to refer to the article “Making a Mockery of Meritocracy” (The Independent, Jan 6). It states that “Over the years, how many government scholarships have been gifted to children of those at the top echelons of government and public service? For every one that is given out, another deserving Singaporean loses out – and that Singaporean could be in dire need of a scholarship because he or she comes from a not-well-to-do family.” In this connection, I believe that the last time that arguably – a very comprehensive analysis and commentary on the “meritocracy” of awarding scholarships, was published was in 2008. There were media reports then, about the break-down of scholarship awardees who stay in HDB and private property. I would like to suggest again that the percentage of scholars from HDB flats be further broken down to the different flat types, i.e. 1 – 2 room, 3-room, 4-room, and 5-room and bigger. Since the private property data was broken down to landed and condominiums, why not the HDB data ? I understand that the statistics last reported in the media was that more than 60 per cent of scholars come from HDB 5-room and bigger, and private property. According to the Department of Statistics’ (DOS) 2008 Yearbook of Statistics, 69 per cent of HDB flats were 4-room and smaller. Since more than 80 per cent of residential dwelling units are HDB flats, the proportion of scholars from private property is disproportionately high. Even the proportion of landed property at 26 per cent is disproportionately higher, compared to the 27 per cent for private non-landed property, as only 29 per cent of all private property are landed. Another way of looking at it may be that students from private property have about a two times higher chance of getting a scholarship, and those from HDB 5-room and bigger about a one and a half times higher chance. In this regard, even those in landed property have about a two times higher chance than non-landed. Clearly, at least from a statistical perspective, the odds may be stacked against HDB 4-roomers and smaller. What is perhaps an even more important statistic is the breakdown of the household and per capita income. The type of residential dwelling may not necessarily reflect the financial need and affordability of the scholarship applicant. If this trend continues, it may lead to a further widening of the income gap. Singapore’s GINI co-efficient has been deteriorating over the years, and is now near to historical highs. Route out of poverty Throughout history, I believe the most common route out of poverty has been education. Whilst there is nothing wrong with awarding scholarships primarily on academic achievement, the current selection criteria and system may be further skewed against lower-income households, as their children may have less in the areas of co-curricular activities, leadership track record, etc, because of their limited financial resources. This may further stack the odds against the lower-income, who have less resources to access tuition, enrichment programmes, learning aids, etc. In countries like the United States, many scholarships are awarded based on financial need. Those who can afford get less money, and those who are rich are given a Honour Scholarship, i.e. in name only without money. I support Mr Philip Yeo’s remarks about his preference to give scholarships to the lower income. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that most bond breakers come from more affluent families. So, the perennial problem and increasing trend of more people breaking bonds may be diminished if more scholarships go to the less affluent. As to the remarks that the family background of applicants are not taken into account, I would like to ask whether the selection panel are able to see such information. If so, I think those involved in the selection and interview process should not be allowed to see such information. The issue of elitism in Singapore has been much debated in the media. Let’s try to do something more about it, in the true spirit of one of the five stars of our national flag, which represents equality for all." (Note: I from RI (Illiterate), A Level B, E, sub sub!)   Leong Sze Hian      Read More →

This pandemic has shown that the Singapore government doesn’t make decisions based on facts, but rather their wish. The fact is that as vaccination went up, so too the number of infections and deaths, exponentially. I cannot recall a reasonable explanation from the government, except that the Delta is very smart, the virus didn’t follow “our script”, it is to be expected as we open up. None seem the explanation of an objective person. Just look at the contradictory policies they have been dishing out. Yet, the government is doubling down on vaccination with the booster shot, never mind the inconvenience to the people, adverse effects and the long term unknown effects of the mRNA. It is their wish that the economy be fully opened, even if people have to die. Bear in mind, a wish is a desire that comes from fundamental self interest. And to justify their policy based only on a wish, they show as “proof” the different treatment of the vaccinated and unvaccinated. It is indeed a low blow from a group of people who profess to be our leaders. We should all disabuse ourselves that our leaders are principled men and women who represent our interest, they are not and they do not, they represent the interest of the rich, big business and their own. We are only needed to put them into power every 5 years.   Foong Swee Fong      Read More →

PM Lee Hsien Loong was right in stating that the pandemic has brought out the best in Singaporeans when addressing the nation earlier. Truth be told, he should have also added that the pandemic has brought out the worst in his “shortlisted” successors and other 4G politicians whom he has been grooming ever since he assumed his premiership as Singapore’s third Prime Minister. To be fair to the virus, our socio-economic woes were already in the making prior to the pandemic and the virus just compounded our miseries. Pandemic Mismanagement: The fight against the pandemic has largely been polarized between the Chinese’s zero-tolerant strategy of swift use of lockdown, testing and tracing to contain any potential viral transmission and protecting their domestic market with very restrictive control of their borders, and the US’s strategy, which is underpinned by their belief that the virus will disappear by itself, and as such, that they can even economize their exploit of the pandemic by propagating vaccination as the primary solution out of the pandemic. For the Chinese, their deployment of the “tried & tested” containment strategy against virus outbreak remains their primary strategy in the fight against the many unknowns in any pandemic. In so doing, they have managed to contain the pandemic while concurrently mobilizing their resources in creating vaccines using yet another “tried & tested” use of inactivated virus. These approaches collectively underscores the importance of ethics espoused by the Hippocratic Oath – “above all, do no harm” Setting aside ethic, the reason why the Chinese is playing it safe rather than be sorry is because any social discourse over any glaring mismanagement of the pandemic can very quickly be escalated into the fall of their central government. This shows that there is still a reasonable “check and balance” between the people and their government despite its socialist ideology which many democratic-advocators are against. For the US, their initial response under President Trump was overly lax, probably presuming that the virus will go away by itself, and this fatal mistake was used shrewdly by the Democrats against the Republican during the last Presidential Election. In blindly following the strategy of the US so faithfully, PM Lee was badly mocked during the onset of the pandemic in 2020, when he actually advocated against the use of mask. Vaccination Strategy Being Undermined By The Untested mRNA Technology: But when President Biden came into power, his strategy was quickly pivoted towards vaccinating his way out of the pandemic while discreetly enthroning their leading pharmaceutical giants with obscene orders from the global adoption of the untested mRNA technology used in their vaccines. When countries like Israel and Singapore, who are staunch allies of the US, start experiencing an exponential increase in infection and death despite having a vaccination rate of over 80%, it is looking like doing more of the same with additional booster shots is not likely to create the desirable outcome that vaccination has promised. Vaccination in itself is a good strategy against any pandemic but the problem we are facing lies in the untested technology of the mRNA and its many unknowns, as evident in the rise of infections and deaths in Singapore and Israel. This may just be the Hard Truth as to why Singapore’s fight against the pandemic is faltering so badly. Light At The End Of The Tunnel For Some: Countries like China, New Zealand and even Australia, who have taken a zero-tolerant approach in dealing with the virus, are now looking forward in opening their domestic economies as the year-end holidays and celebrations approaches. By appreciating the just how vital their domestic economy can offer to their citizens and putting effort in protecting them by controlling their borders, they have wisely chosen “a bird in hand" over the "two in the bush”. In the sad case for Singapore where all hope of a celebrative year-end may have been dashed by the miscalculations of the Multi-Ministerial Taskforce (MTF) when our borders were open too prematurely and that unwittingly allowing the Delta-variant a free access into our population and damaging our domestic market and all hopes of any real recovery. Lee’s Derailed Succession Plan - Is There A Power Vacuum At Play? Those shortlisted successors of PM Lee have been rotated so frequently until nobody knows who is to be blamed for our economic woes and who should we be blaming for our pandemic woes. So in all fairness to Ong Ye Kung, the current Health Minister, questions need to be asked if he was promoted or was he “thrown” into the hot seat by some unseen force. If so, could it be that there may be some forms of infighting or backstabbing going on in the 4G PAP inner circle while Singapore is fighting a deadly pandemic? If there is indeed an invisible hand at work, then aren’t Heng Swee Keat, Lawrence Wong and Ong all victims of some political backstabbing? Is that why the Law and Home Affairs minister is fortifying his own position by rushing to pass the FICA bill so urgently despite much protest? Question is, who has been discreetly taken out of the hot seats of our economic and pandemic woes and also stand to gain the most from their miseries? And if so, isn’t our fight against the pandemic already a lost cause should those successors-in-waiting are fighting and destroying one another to become the next Prime Minister of Singapore? Looking Ahead: I sincerely hope that all these are just some figments of my imagination and will not come to pass as such a dreadful scenario is worse than having a rogue government which Lee Kuan Yew has warned us about. But the possibility of political infighting within the 4G PAP remains probable since power will always find its way into any vacuum and that is why PM Lee must exert much more control over his successors-in-waiting and not allow such a dreadful eventuality to come to pass. The troubling problem with this is that Lee is already not in his best of health and the stress of a failed succession plan, our prevailing socio-economic woes and the latest mismanagement of the pandemic may just prove too much on his already fragile body. This begets another vital question - what if Lee is unable to complete even his current term in office without naming his successor and address any potential public resentment of his replacement? Can Singapore afford to ignore this reality or hope that by keeping their fingers crossed, they can avoid the inconvenience of addressing this fundament reality? In a cynical way, the pandemic has become a real eye-opener in exposing the incompetency of the current 4G PAP and shows us that all is not well within their inner circle. In retrospect, Lee should have been much more firm in holding his successors-in-waiting to account for their earlier failures, and if he has done so, then we would most likely be having a much more dynamic task force on deck in taming the pandemic and saving our economy. This is where I think many Singaporeans will feel the painful loss of leaders like Lee Kuan Yew or Goh Keng Swee, who have stood fearlessly in the face of major challenges to get us out of harm ways. But we have to accept the reality that they are gone and the current 4G PAP politicians, especially many of those who are in waiting to become our next prime minister, may well be leading our country into more chaos and despair with their misplaced priority and interests. Nevertheless, I still hope Lee will remember the legacy of his father, and do something “miraculously surprising” to effect a positive socio-economic change in Singapore, if he still believes that Singaporeans deserve better…   Joseph Nathan      Read More →