Quite interesting to read it in light of the letter about elitism that I had written about on Tuesday; especially this part:
...Yet another telling statistic was cited by Mr Soon, a graduate of highly-ranked American university Stanford.
He was surprised to find that more than 75 per cent of Singaporeans studying there did not live in HDB flats, even though 85 per cent of the population does.
"These Singaporean students were mainly scholarship holders, and this begged the question whether the rich are the main beneficiaries of our meritocratic system," he wrote.
It has been said that in a meritocracy like ours, people accept inequality if they believe there is opportunity...
I think Mr Soon's finding is very interesting.He was surprised to find that more than 75 per cent of Singaporeans studying there did not live in HDB flats, even though 85 per cent of the population does.
"These Singaporean students were mainly scholarship holders, and this begged the question whether the rich are the main beneficiaries of our meritocratic system," he wrote.
It has been said that in a meritocracy like ours, people accept inequality if they believe there is opportunity...
I remember sometime back I had a debate with Ukyt about the aim of PSC scholarship in Singapore. On my part, I believe it was meant as a way to lift academically talented Singaporeans living in or near poverty out of their present station in life, and that the children of rich families were taking that escape route away from the under-privilege by hogging it.
On the other hand, Ukyt's concept of scholarship (if I can recall correctly) was more as a means for the civil service to spot and train talents regardless of their family background.
At this point, I have to say that he's right. No where in the legislation or whatever that established the PSC scholarship scheme eons ago is it mentioned that a candidate has to come from a family that earns less than a certain amount, which it most probably would if the scheme was meant to benefit the poor.
Yes, even though a lot of scholarships are set up to benefit poor but talented students, it doesn't mean that all scholarships are meant for that purpose alone.
In Singapore's context, the PSC scholarship is most probably intended to spot, train and nurture a talented individual for a career in the civil service. It does not intentionally discriminate according to family background. However, it is a fact that scions of wealthy families will inevitably have a leg up over those who come from a more humble background. It may be nature or nurture, it may be that the wealthier families are the ones that can afford the money to cram their kids full with tuition and whatever they can come up with, it may be that the wealthier families believe that the way to success in life is through a successful and secure civil service career whereas the more impoverished ones believes that the hustle and bustle of the open market is more suitable to their efforts in making more money.
Interestingly, it may be those 75% of Singaporeans studying at Stanford and who don't live in HDB flats who are the most likely to break their bond with the agency that is paying for their studies. After all, their relatively wealthy families can most probably afford the financial penalty that that would incur.
I am not saying that the government should overhaul the scholarship programme completely; after all, it serves its purpose. Let's face it, life (and scholarships) is neither fair nor unfair. It's just is. Yes, the rich will benefit and that's a fact, though not statistically proven yet (as far as I can tell anyway).
I think the below proposal gives us some markers to judge the truthfulness of the adage that the rich will become richer and the poor will stay poor or become even poorer.
...A team of American sociologists recent proposed four measures to determine where a person lands of the class scale.
They are: social capital (who you know); credential capital (like where you received your degree); consumption capital or income; and investment capital (stocks and bonds).
The issue is how sticky these four types of capital are here.
Is our society set up in such a way that those with none of the four, or very little, find it increasingly difficult to increase their store, while those with a lot to begin with just keep piling up more?
Or does Singapore remains a place where a maid's daughter can rise to the ranks of the elite in one generation?
There is no conclusive evidence either way...
As for the question of whether our society is "set up in such a way that those with none of the four, or very little, find it increasingly difficult to increase their store, while those with a lot to begin with just keep piling up more?" I feel strongly that the answer would be a huge "YES!!" Not just in our Singaporean society, but the world at large. No matter how egalitarian LKY and gang wanted Singapore to be back then, they seem to have come around to the fact that equality is not reality. Though it is a part of our national pledge, it cannot be realised in Singapore's system of governance and meritocracy. Hell, it can't even be realised in any form of government or any country's society no matter how idealistic they are. The failure of communism to make everyone equal is a good example.They are: social capital (who you know); credential capital (like where you received your degree); consumption capital or income; and investment capital (stocks and bonds).
The issue is how sticky these four types of capital are here.
Is our society set up in such a way that those with none of the four, or very little, find it increasingly difficult to increase their store, while those with a lot to begin with just keep piling up more?
Or does Singapore remains a place where a maid's daughter can rise to the ranks of the elite in one generation?
There is no conclusive evidence either way...
So do we all just sit back, throw our hands up in their air and claim that all our idealism is for naught? Of course not. It is through humanity's aim for a higher ground that we have achieved what we have today. Yes, I admit that there are still tons of injustices today, but what if none of the leading lights of the enlightenment had espoused their vision of utopia and no one was brave enough to pursue that vision?
Coming back to Singapore, it is now up to us to find some ways to bridge the gap, not just between the haves and have-nots but also between the races, the channel 5s and channel 8s, and everyone else here. We may not be able to achieve the nirvana of social perfection, but in striving towards that "impossibility" we will inevitably make some progress towards it.
But as we make our way forward as a nation, we would do well to remember this caveat: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
***
5th July 2005: Shiiiiiiit!! I didn't realise that this post would attract so much attention in the blogosphere with mention and quotes in "From a Singapore Angle", "Random Thoughts on Public Policies, Governance and Politics" (which incidentally has the full text of the original article by Lydia Lim) and "Tomorrow". Okay lah, not like it got THAT MUCH attention, I am just being paranoid. :-P
Oh, and here's another interesting take on the scholarship thing.
CURRENT
TOP
let's get real here - the young people of today have very different values from yesteryear. be bonded for 8 years? are they out of their minds?
if superb grades is what the gahmen wants, superb grades is what the gahmen gets. but there is something even intelligence cannot substitute for - the innate desire to lay down one's ambitions to *serve the country.
* operative word here is serve, not notch one up on the cv to look good
and this is what the gahmen failed to detect when choosing their scholars (being the grades-focused system that singapore is).
maybe most did have that desire, but saw a rigid unchangeable hierarchy looming up before them and hence decided to bail out before ending up stuck for 8 years.
as for the others, maybe they didn't have it in them from the very start?
Goya
It is unfortunate that there are hardly any bursaries for university education.
Now, SCHOLARSHIP is different. Academic sucess / CCA / blah blah blah are the most important criterias.
2. The aim of the PSC scholarship is openly stated on their website:
The Public Service Commission (PSC) is constituted under Part IX of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. The PSC's aim is to attract and develop talent for the Singapore Civil Service through the award of scholarships on the principles of merit and impartiality.
In other words, though the PSC scholarship has, roughly, egalitarian and redistributive (and social mobility) implications, it does not exist and was not envisioned to exist for those reasons.
If quotas were indeed set for number of 'rich' and 'poor' students for scholarships, wouldn't it be unfair to 'rich' students aspiring to earn their own education instead of being dependent on their parents? Isn't such a spirit commendable?
Another point is if such a quota is indeed set, there are may be 'poorer' students with perhaps slightly less aptitude getting the scholarship. Would the scholarship necessarily help them? What if they do not meet the mark? Will they not have to repay the costs at high interest rates as per scholarship clauses?
Fairness over financial differences may not mean fairness over character. Does a 'poor' student with inferior character necessarily deserve a scholarship more than a 'rich' student with mettle?
I feel that the current system although flawed, is still a pretty good method for selection.
And yes, I'm a scholarship holder as well and I stay in a HDB flat =)
But seriously folks, I do agree that the PSC scholarship is not intended as a social leveller. Which is why I accept that my initial perception is flawed. And neither am I saying that it should only benefit children from under-privilege families. The PSC scholarship's aim is to recruit talented people for a career in the civil service, nothing more and nothing less. Their only issue now is retention of those scholars.
Having said, scholarships are created for different reasons. There will be some that are catered to those from lower-income families even though someone from a wealthier family may be more qualified.
Hence, I am not advocating that the PSC scholarship be overhauled with quotas set in place for rich and poor students. The question that needs to be asked is whether the scholarship achieves its aim. At the moment, the answer seems to be a "yes" with a "but". The "but" being bond-breakers lah, and how to address that. In my limited and humble opinion, it has not reach a stage where the whole thing needs to be completely overhauled.
I mean so what if those from wealthier families benefit more than those from lower-income ones. That's the way life is. PSC scholarships are not meant to address that though I am sure there are plans or schemes in existence to serve those needs.
And frankly, a lot of us need to re-look our perceptions and ideas on scholarships and a civil service career. Success in life and stability shouldn't just be seen in the context of the two. But of course parents being parents (bless them) would want their kids to go the safe and more "prestigious" route. So it remains for their children to break away from the yellow brick road and walk though an unknown or previously non-existent track. I think parents of a later generation are more receptive to the idea of a different sort of success now.
Going off-track a bit, I think Mr Soon's study may be a bit flawed lah. Just because someone lives in a HDB flats doesn't make him or her poor. Homes for the masses doesn't mean home for the "not so rich". As a matter of fact, a lot of HDB dwellers now are pretty wealthy and can afford two or more cars, country club memberships, multiple holidays in a year, extensive tuition and enrichment classes for their young ones, etc. etc.
The stuff about poverty, social mobility, income equality, etc., are other issues altogether.