Of Fireworks and Meritocracy

The past few weeks have passed in a flurry, in a rather hectic 3 week mix of Police attachment, scholarship ceremonies and media interviews.

Police attachment was an eye opener, although it came at a rather bad time. It was a really good way to be exposed to the force (though a rather sanitised version of “tours”), and learnt alot from random talk to the officers on the ground. Have come away very impressed by the amount of knowledge and power they hold; the police force is indeed built from its officers on the ground upwards.

I would like to write more, but then again I realise that now my job requires a certain amount of secrecy.

In another seperate incident, I was interviewed by Zaobao regarding my scholarship- resulting in a headline the next day which went “???????????????????????????” (Translation: One less fireworks display, and a few more people can be sent to university)

Source: Straits Times

This comment was paraphrased from a very long explanation that I was giving, to explain how the government could fund scholarships for needy students. In it I brought up a number of possibilities from many different areas, one of which was the cutting down of fireworks displays during NDP rehearsals.

(Earlier I had been asked what I, as the only HDB dweller among the scholars, thought about Phillip Yeo saying that he would award scholarships to the HDB dweller, based on a “socialist principle”. I said that I would rather not base it on that, but rather set the criteria on the applicant’s hunger and desire to serve in the organization, things which vary across people of different economic strata)

2 types of Scholarships

Moreover I said that there should be two types of scholarships: the first, ??? (scholarships meant to be given based on talent), and the second, ??? (scholarships meant to enable students to pay for education). ??? are meant for talent attraction- if say an organization like the government wants to build up a talent pool, then their scholarship should be based solely on merit (of both IQ and EQ). On the other hand ??? are meant to enable people who otherwise would not be able to pay for university to get a chance to attend university.

Of this whole incident I have two thoughts:

Meritocracy

The first is that “meritocracy” may have flaws. Right now there is a disparity in opportunity for students, even at the Primary, Secondary and JC levels. The more well-to-do may be able to afford tuition, and may be able to afford many extra-curricular courses and activities. I come from a moderately well-to-do background (I learnt music, etc), but I was particularly in awe of the students whose parents could send them on various exchange trips, and attend courses like Adam Khoo, Montessori and . They were also ferried from place to place; this alone added close to 2 hours more to their day, and enabled them to take on activities in various parts of Singapore.

Partly my envy for them was a reason why I started doing a bit of internet business in Sec 2, but that was already from the perspective of an upper-middle class household. Thus, while we may have an equality before meritocracy, we may not have an equality in opportunity.

However this criticism is largely misplaced. Looking past opportunity-equalizing schemes such as edusave (which I happily relied on to fund my trips to HongKong and India), I am convinced that by the students hit 17-19, family financial background plays less importance than the innate drive of a person. One of the highest performers I know comes from a very simple background; even though he does not have tuition he does his best to ask his teachers. It does seem to me that resourcefulness and a person’s innate drive play a larger part in his/her success at this stage; I know of students who have been sent for almost every tuition available but are still not doing well for lack of drive, and at the same time I have yet to find a high performer who has got there solely on his parents’ money. For the resourceful there is the internet, there are libraries, and there are notes that can be borrowed.

Money makes performing easier, however it does not guarantee performance. But should this factor into scholarship decisions? I admit I don’t know.

Priorities: Fireworks or Scholarships?

There was quite a bit of reaction to “my” comment on fireworks (as seen here). At first I was tempted to just say that it was a misquote and I meant something totally different. Privately, I thought the quote was right on the mark. I believe it outlines something more important- what we have to do as Singapore, to determine what our priorities are.

What I said during the interview was that certain expenditures could be relooked. What does 20 seconds of fireworks during a rehearsal mean to us? An outburst of national pride, fascination? Now if we could exchange this 20 seconds of fireworks for lets say, free rental of one-room flats for public assistance elderly (currently they pay $14 per month, steep for they who earn practically nothing). Would we? Which do we value more?

The responses to the fireworks issue have been varied- some say that going by this thinking we’ll end up with a nothing in our state to remind us of our glory, while China has 20 minute firework displays. Fireworks are a raw nerve, especially at this National Day period. But to me they represent a lot- they are an extravagant celebration of light, power and sheer scale, and invoke pride in me as a Singaporean. I’ve gone through numerous National Days watching the huge displays of light in the sky, awestruck and with a immense swell of patriotism in me.

But I think I’m willing to sacrifice that feeling of patriotism in a few rehearsals, in order to fund something with perhaps more social purpose. Don’t get me wrong- I think fireworks during the actual National Day itself is important; it is the pride of the nation, its celebration of joy. However during rehearsals maybe a watered down fireworks display could be done to save money.

But this detracts from the main point. I think all of this boils down to our priorities, and our values. Our expenditure reflects our priorities, and I think its high time we look at our expenditures. Do we value landscaped gardens, or could we cut down a bit on it to fund say an unemployment help package to ease the burden of the structurally unemployed? Should our expenditures go into making our city a “first-class city” with top rate infrastructure, or should it go into the “black hole” of welfare for its citizens, which may be less visible, and with certain disincentive effects?

Again I don’t know, and I don’t want to pretend to know. But like most 19 year olds on this planet, I have the rest of my life to go find out.