<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Elitist danger in S'pore education
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I READ with interest Mr Zakir Hussain's article last Friday, 'Meritocracy's hidden danger' which gives a revealing insight into Singapore's brand of meritocracy.
The article states that about 53 per cent of Public Service Commission scholarships go to those who live in private property.
While there is general acquiescence that these scholarships are indeed awarded on the basis of academic performance and individual achievement alone, the preponderance of the socially privileged among them merits scrutiny.
These students largely hail from the crème de la crème of schools and have benefited from the various schemes that cater to the academically talented, such as the Education Ministry's Gifted Education Programme.
Their dominant social status arising from higher household incomes suggests that they possess the cultural capital required to 'make it' in life, as nurtured by their parents who are likely to have attained qualifications at the tertiary level.
In their scholastic journey, this group of students are likely to be enrolled in the Integrated Programme where, since 2004, they have been allowed to bypass the O-level examinations, in favour of taking the A Levels at the end of a six-year course.
This is a manifestation of greater elitism being built into the education system, where the same elite minority continue to receive value-added education throughout their schooling years at the expense of vast amounts of public funds.
As a result, Singapore's education system, which has always been held up as a model of social mobility for all, is attenuated because one group benefits from a distinct advantage over the others. The public perception that there is an inherent link between students from wealthier households and high academic achievement is pervasive.
Over the years, there have also been concerns about the attitudes of these students who are among the best and brightest and who are likely to secure positions of pre-eminence in society in the future. The raison d'�tre for this stems from the fact that there have been several scholars who are known to have broken their government bonds in favour of more lucrative job offers, which smacks of individualistic competition and selfishness, among other factors.
There is the danger of a dichotomy developing in an increasingly stratified Singapore society, exacerbated by widening income gaps where the mentality of 'us versus them' prevails.
By then, the people's faith in our so-called meritocratic system would have shattered. Muhammad Farouq Osman
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I READ with interest Mr Zakir Hussain's article last Friday, 'Meritocracy's hidden danger' which gives a revealing insight into Singapore's brand of meritocracy.
The article states that about 53 per cent of Public Service Commission scholarships go to those who live in private property.
While there is general acquiescence that these scholarships are indeed awarded on the basis of academic performance and individual achievement alone, the preponderance of the socially privileged among them merits scrutiny.
These students largely hail from the crème de la crème of schools and have benefited from the various schemes that cater to the academically talented, such as the Education Ministry's Gifted Education Programme.
Their dominant social status arising from higher household incomes suggests that they possess the cultural capital required to 'make it' in life, as nurtured by their parents who are likely to have attained qualifications at the tertiary level.
In their scholastic journey, this group of students are likely to be enrolled in the Integrated Programme where, since 2004, they have been allowed to bypass the O-level examinations, in favour of taking the A Levels at the end of a six-year course.
This is a manifestation of greater elitism being built into the education system, where the same elite minority continue to receive value-added education throughout their schooling years at the expense of vast amounts of public funds.
As a result, Singapore's education system, which has always been held up as a model of social mobility for all, is attenuated because one group benefits from a distinct advantage over the others. The public perception that there is an inherent link between students from wealthier households and high academic achievement is pervasive.
Over the years, there have also been concerns about the attitudes of these students who are among the best and brightest and who are likely to secure positions of pre-eminence in society in the future. The raison d'�tre for this stems from the fact that there have been several scholars who are known to have broken their government bonds in favour of more lucrative job offers, which smacks of individualistic competition and selfishness, among other factors.
There is the danger of a dichotomy developing in an increasingly stratified Singapore society, exacerbated by widening income gaps where the mentality of 'us versus them' prevails.
By then, the people's faith in our so-called meritocratic system would have shattered. Muhammad Farouq Osman
