Are they afraid of reprisals from the Familee?
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Time to relook how talent is identified in Singapore
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->MR TAN Soon Hock's letter on Tuesday, 'How to identify 'Churchills' here?', has added a new spin to the recent debate on Singapore's meritocratic system. In the light to recent letters suggesting that Singapore's system of meritocracy favours the well-off, as well as the question of whether Singapore's system leaves out potential 'Churchills', perhaps it is time to rethink how talent should be identified in Singapore.
I am not saying we should change our system of government altogether, but rather relook society's definition of 'meritocracy'. Are achievements alone a good indication of abilities and talent? Indeed, scholarship boards do look beyond academic results - all-rounders who achieve in their co-curricular activities and other areas are also rewarded and given recognition for their effort and talent. However, as illustrated by Mr Kam Zhihao in his online letter on Tuesday, 'A tale of two students of different social status', Singapore's system of meritocracy certainly does not give rise to a level playing field, as students of different socio-economic background have their potential maximised to different extents.
The intrinsic principles behind meritocracy should be stuck to - that, rather than wealth or social connections, rewards be given based on talent and merit. But how the system identifies talent and abilities is to be questioned. Are we putting too much emphasis on quantifiable 'talent' that can be documented on paper, and neglecting true leadership capabilities and qualities? How do we ensure the system does not favour the elite, and ensure homogeneous opportunities for all? Perhaps the solution lies in our attitudes towards, and definitions of, what can be considered 'talent' or 'merit'. Rhea Tan (Miss)
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Time to relook how talent is identified in Singapore
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->MR TAN Soon Hock's letter on Tuesday, 'How to identify 'Churchills' here?', has added a new spin to the recent debate on Singapore's meritocratic system. In the light to recent letters suggesting that Singapore's system of meritocracy favours the well-off, as well as the question of whether Singapore's system leaves out potential 'Churchills', perhaps it is time to rethink how talent should be identified in Singapore.
I am not saying we should change our system of government altogether, but rather relook society's definition of 'meritocracy'. Are achievements alone a good indication of abilities and talent? Indeed, scholarship boards do look beyond academic results - all-rounders who achieve in their co-curricular activities and other areas are also rewarded and given recognition for their effort and talent. However, as illustrated by Mr Kam Zhihao in his online letter on Tuesday, 'A tale of two students of different social status', Singapore's system of meritocracy certainly does not give rise to a level playing field, as students of different socio-economic background have their potential maximised to different extents.
The intrinsic principles behind meritocracy should be stuck to - that, rather than wealth or social connections, rewards be given based on talent and merit. But how the system identifies talent and abilities is to be questioned. Are we putting too much emphasis on quantifiable 'talent' that can be documented on paper, and neglecting true leadership capabilities and qualities? How do we ensure the system does not favour the elite, and ensure homogeneous opportunities for all? Perhaps the solution lies in our attitudes towards, and definitions of, what can be considered 'talent' or 'merit'. Rhea Tan (Miss)
:(
