As I'm reading articles on education during the NDR yesterday, it becomes clearer that the second project that the PM is trying to embark on is the remaking of the elite in Singapore. The fundamental law that underpins our meritocracy is where we consider stratification as a necessary evil at a very young age. This is to decide which child deserves more resources as compared to another. All schools are equal, but some are more equal than others.
This is not a fundamental rethink and questioning of our elitist systems of stratification at a very young age, but it is now about imparting qualities of "flexibility" to better ensure that potentates are not ostracised at too young an age. This is also increasingly translated in Scholarship applicants for the Civil Service, as they increasingly look beyond the traditional recruiting grounds of Hwa Chong and Raffles, the bastion of elitism.
What then is the PAP doing in the remaking of the elite? Firstly, it is through the removal of the discourse of elitism altogether. The remarks of ESM Goh at the Homecoming Dinner at RI is an indication that the elitist models of yesteryear are increasingly seen as a detriment to Nation-Building, and a "compassionate meritocracy" should be practised by these future potentates, and a need to "guard against elitism." Speeches of a similar bent have actually been more common over the past few years, and is a growing awareness of the deleterious effects of elitism, which has become a global movement.
Secondly, this remaking is through the reconsideration of what merit is. That, in and of itself, is an extremely desirable ideal. However, one must consider that merit is a means to an end, which in the case of our meritocracy, is to gain a better social position. As mentioned in the NDR, Direct School Admissions to now include character, resilience, drive and leadership.
Opening up these categories might appear to broaden the selection pool, but this does not factor in the unequal access people have to goods of merit. Merit should be seen as Cultural Capital, and one that requires time and money to acquire. What does this mean in an increasingly unequal Singapore?
What characterises the elite of today is not one who only pursues cultural capital of a higher class, but one who is voracious in their consumption of all cultural capital. It means they are as comfortable with Mozart as they are with Madonna. Distinction happens today not because of the type of knowledge you have, but how much and how "equally" you consume. This, paradoxically, induces inequality, because working-class people don't have the time, or the money, to consume beyond what their socio-economic system provides.
So let me move back to the inclusion of "character, resilience, drive and leadership". The question here is of course: how will this be quantified? Perhaps through CCAs? What are the metrics involved in "measuring" leadership?
These at the very first glance seem to be something that's innate, one that is shaped by the individual. However, this is something that is highly dependent on your social class and upbringing. Studies have shown that students from a lower socio-economic background are more acquiescent than those of middle/upper class upbringing. Acquiescence is hardly the best thing to show leadership yes?
Your social class also teaches you how to "talk" in front of teachers. You might be less articulate compared to your peers who speak good English at home, and this will of course hamper your interactions with the teacher. The quality of your ideas might be more or less the same, but you might be seen as "unrefined" or "rudimentary" simply because your vocabulary is lacking. (My use of the word "potentate" in this piece is a prime example of how I "sell" my writing)
This is how the most individual of merits are actually embedded in systems of power, and herein lies the problem with policies revolving around the remaking of elitism in Singapore: one in which there are more definitions of merit, but a system where increasingly few people can attain and fulfil said definitions. The question now that will serve Singapore better is not to ask "how to stratify better?" but to ask "how to reduce inequality?" Unfortunately, our fixation is with the former but not the latter.
(The ideas of a "voraciousness" in consuming cultural capital was first brought up in the book "Privilege" by Shamus Rahman Khan)
http://www.amazon.com/Privilege-Adolescent-Princeton-Sociology-ebook/dp/B004K1F6P4
Lim Jialiang
*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/lim.jialiang/posts/10151946665696844