Andrew Loh / Deputy Editor

In a letter to the Straits Times’ forum page, Ang Kian Chuan replied to the remarks made by the Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Professor Kishore Mahbubani. (See here: “Prof, here’s why parents look to Aussie universities.” )

The professor had said, in an interview with the paper last Friday (“Don’t sniff at our education system”):

Look at the number of parents who are paying to send their kids to Australian universities when, frankly, the NUS provides a far better education than most Australian universities.

Prof Mahbubani was well, upset that Singaporeans “still think of the National University of Singapore (NUS) as being in the ‘second league’ of higher-education institutions”. He also claimed that NUS “is more respected by its overseas counterparts than by Singaporeans.”

“The NUS is one of the best places in the region to study Asia, as a steady stream of visitors from top universities in the West testify,” says the professor.

It is thus ironic, as Ang pointed out in his letter, that Mr Mahbubani revealed that his own children studied overseas, and not in local universities. “I’m reminded of the time when those who chose to study and stay on to work abroad were branded ‘quitters’ by our leaders,” says Ang. “I was dismayed to read later that many children of leaders themselves were studying and staying overseas.”

The Prime Minister’s son, Li Hongyi, is currently studying at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the US. He is on the PSC Overseas Merit Scholarship (Foreign Service). (RJC)

In another letter to the Straits Times, Muhammad Farouq Osman raised the question of how scholarships are awarded. (“Elitist danger in S’pore education”)

Straits Times writer Zakir Hussain had reported that “about 53 per cent of Public Service Commission scholarships go to those who live in private property.” (“Meritocracy’s hidden danger”)

Hussain wrote:

In a paper published this year, Assistant Professor Kenneth Paul Tan of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy argues that Singapore’s meritocratic system ‘has been practised so extremely that it is starting to show signs of becoming a victim of its own success’.

‘As the economic and political elite are rewarded with larger prizes, a vast and visible inequality of outcomes will replace the incentive effect with a sense of resentment, helplessness, social disengagement, and even envy among those who perceive themselves as systematically disadvantaged,’ he notes.

He continues:

Where 80 per cent of people live in HDB flats, only some 47 per cent of Public Service Commission scholarship recipients this year do. Some 27 per cent are in private, non-landed property, and the other 26 per cent live in landed property.

It is a distortion former A*Star chief Philip Yeo hinted at recently when he said scholarships could ‘uplift’ students from poorer families, and that if two applicants had equally exceptional grades, he would award a scholarship to the one from a humbler household.

Hussain ends his piece with something to think about:

Disdain for the poor is the hidden danger that lurks in meritocracy.

Farouq Osman is concerned that:

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.

It would thus seem that there are two distinct questions about our education policy:

One, whether our schools (especially the tertiary institutions) are increasingly being seen as favouring foreigners, resulting in parents sending their children overseas.

Two, whether the manner in which scholarships are awarded is creating an elite class of younger Singaporeans whose parents are from the same elite class. In the words of Farouq Osman:

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.

What are your thoughts about the issues? If you have personal experiences in these areas, please do share them with us. Alternatively, you can write to us at [email protected].

Is our education system slanted towards favouring the elite class?


Cartoon from My Sketchbook.


Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Your vote is secret – vote without fear

In the lead-up to the 2011 General Election, and indeed as in…

警方促民众勿分享个人验证码 免WhatsApp账号被盗

本月3日,传出社交网站脸书、Instagram 和WhatsApp出现读取照片方面的问题,今天警方再次向民众发出提醒,指即时通信应用程序WhatsApp账号也可能被盗用。 警方发出文告指出,受害者会收到来自假冒账号,或账号被盗用的友人的WhatsApp信息,要求输入六位数的验证码。受害者照做后,就再也无法登入他们的账号了。 WhatsApp账号遭到用已经非新鲜事项,尤其在今年,在1月份警方就表示已经收到十余宗相关投报。 我国成电信诈骗高发区 据悉,警方数据显示,投报的数量在6月2日已将近百宗,我国俨然成了时下电信诈骗的高发区。 另外,不法之徒也会在聊天群组中,以截屏方式发送WhatsApp验证码截屏,假装好心提醒群组的其他成员要警惕账户被盗。他们会在同时,透过另外的设备登录群组成员的账号,让受害者收到验证码。 受害者此时若信以为真,就会在群组中分享验证码截屏,随后他们的账号就被盗取了。 骗徒一般会使用盗取的WhatsApp账号来要求其他受害者进行转账、提供游戏分数,甚至要求游戏礼品卡,然后在网站上转卖出去。 当局呼吁民众提高警惕,不要同任何人发分享自己的账号验证码。若真的接到友人的要求,也不要通过WhatsApp回复,应该直接拨电联系,向对方确认。 民众也可以在发现任何可疑行为时,拨打警方热线1800-2550000,或上网提供资料。

飞踢电动滑板车骑士 辅警被停职

前日被拍到飞踢电动滑板车骑士的策安(Certis Cisco)公司辅警,据知已被停职。 本月10日傍晚约6时40分,一组陆交局执法人员和策安辅警组成的队伍,正在勿洛蓄水池路一带进行执法任务。 有关辅警发现一名电动滑板车骑士,在勿洛北三道行驶,于是发信号指示停车,孰料骑士竟避开辅警。最终在下个路口被另一辅警截停(即网传视频中,被飞踢)。 昨晚陆路交通管理局已透过脸书公告,已联同警方和策安公司展开调查,该局表示不姑息任何偏离执法守则的行为。 策安公司发言人告知媒体,有关电动滑板车骑士无视辅警多次警告,对方高速行驶且可能对自身和他人构成伤害。至于涉事辅警则踢倒有关骑士。 骑手右肘和右膝擦伤,并在现场得到医护人员护理;但该公司也指辅警也因此受伤。 该公司称将针对上述事件展开纪律调查,不会容忍以及将对涉及违反守则的辅警展开严厉行动。 根据该公司既定的执法守则,执法人员应记录下逃跑肇事者的样貌特征,再向陆交局报告。 不过,陆交局也指有关违规骑士在公路上使用未注册、重达30.54公斤不符规格的电动滑板车,目前已被当局没收及调查。 根据在去年5月1日生效的《活跃通勤法案》(Active Mobility…

From concrete floor to celebrity police escort in five-and-a-half weeks

The following is an excerpt of a post written by Alan Shadrake…