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