All the pandemonia on elitism
The recent debate about elitism and its after-effects in schools in Singapore has been intriguing in more ways than one. Broadly speaking, a ST survey found that students from ‘elite’ schools tend to suffer more from inferiority or superiority complexes vis-à-vis their peers in the other (by definition ‘non-elite’) schools. While it remains unclear what standards one ought to go by to determine if a school is elite (a point that the reports thus far, including the reviews that I’ve come across either explicitly acknowledge is not always lucid, or at least do not deny the difficulty of the question), there seems to be a general consensus that the value of a school that eventually leads it to be or not be an ‘elite’ institution lies in its ability to generate good academic results or bring about successes in the areas of sports, the arts etc. Some worry that because of such purported proclivities in ‘elite’ schools, students in these institutions tend to suffer from all these pathologies and parents, principals and teachers should be solicitous to such phenomena.
Let’s not quibble about the definition value in a school that eventually makes it elite or not. Elitism and elite-ness in Singapore have taken on very unique meanings of their own that may or may not be shared by other English speakers elsewhere, in my opinion. There is almost an air of exclusivity not just in elitism (which is probably a legitimate property of that concept) but also in being an elite. It’s partly due to the gleeful politicization as effected by our political leaders; the scholarship system that is almost crowded out by the state and the attendant implications that those who get the scholarships are considered ‘elite’ desperately narrows the idea of being an elite. In Singapore, being an elite is not just about being the best in your field. It is about being one of the best in the very specific ambit of academic and subsequently public service success. It is hard to understand ‘elite’ in the context of the business setting in Singapore. Sim Wong Hoo, Olivia Lum and even maybe even David Gan, some of the self-made rags-to-riches business celebrities that I have so much reverence for, are successful and especially for the former two, entrepreneurs. Nonetheless, we cannot – in Singapore’s socio-linguistic context – consider them elites, because while ‘political elites’ makes sense, ‘business elites’ is a weakly-linked oxymoron to most minds.
But enough said about the words. I am more taken aback by the point that was raised and I have reproduced in the last line of the first paragraph. Those working closely with the students who tend to be more afflicted by such superiority or inferiority complexes as the survey suggests or portends ought to give more attention to the latter. Parents apparently are also concerned about sending their children to such ‘elite’ institutions because of the propensity for their children to come out either wetting their pants or having a sprained neck from sticking their noses in the clouds for too long. Competition – which they think is at the heart of the problem, given its almost unbridled intense presence and ubiquity in such institutions – is what we need to be careful of. Teenagers (the ST interviewed 15-24 year-olds) to young persons cannot handle competition of that sort, so we must all be very chary about how it moulds them into worse characters.
This is said notwithstanding the obvious fact that these institutions have been churning out successful individuals continually. Of course there are black sheep occasionally, but that’s the case everywhere. Teenagers and young persons in my opinion are a lot hardier than these molly-coddling parents, teachers and counselors in favour of such a prescription think they are. It’s without doubt that the learning will be both in the classroom (in terms of actual course content) and beyond (in terms of learning how to interact with people who have shown themselves to be either doggedly conscientious or very intelligent), and there are those who will learn more slowly, possibly because they tend more to suffer from the alleged complexes, but why should there not be sufficient room for these students to learn all these important skills? Competition that is more intense than that awaits them if they want to be successful in their professional life in future, because they will likely be competing with more intelligent and hardworking persons from all over the world, if the globalisation argument has its way in the labour market this young man or woman is to work in subsequently. Why do we shield them from such competition, or indeed why do we even have to fear it or orchestrate its possible recession from the scenes?
I find this argument from fear an argument from paranoia. And I think this is partly because I see a gross parallel here with the arguments that protectionist governments like to articulate to shield their economies from the forces of competition that constitute the inevitable phenomenon of globalisation. Why should we do that? If farmers from France to S Korea are not bucking up, only if there is a truly indomitable moral or cultural reason to keep them alive despite the inefficiencies should we contemplate protectionism, and even then it shouldn’t be a long-term solution, but one that eases the passage to competitive production. Chirac was clearly in favour of the agrarian heritage of France, and among other things it led to the controversies surrounding France’s high tariffs on agricultural imports. It is emblematic of the French way of life, we are told, and that is probably not without a grain of truth in it. But even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, it is clear that tariffs are not going to be a long term solution, and the inefficiencies will continue to cost the country much to recover. Sarkozy’s election is probably going to be a whiff of fresh air for France, given his manifesto and mandate thus far, but we’ll keep our fingers crossed for now.
It is probably very hard to ever find such strong moral or cultural reasons for protectionism, in my opinion. Politically it is very easy to argue for this conclusion and indeed it is very often the main justification for this backlash from globalization. However, while economics and politics almost always come hand-in-hand, it is my view that politics requires the economics for continuity more than the other way around. Interregna in governance almost always come from penury in the country, and eventually, protectionism regardless of what clout a country has in the international stage will erode the political capital that a ruling party has because of the inevitable loss that the country has to suffer from protecting its industries.
Indian banks are an exception. To date, several Indian banks are still protected by the Indian government, but thankfully as has been evinced by the general spirit of the Indian government thus far, this move is taken only to streamline the local financial industry and bring forth the best few to compete in the world market. The eye of the government in this endeavour continues to be focused on preparing the banks for globalization and the ensuing competition, and protectionism in that sense is a means to that end which the government has not forsaken or hidden away from.
But look at our students. What moral or cultural reason can there possibly be to protect them from competition? And this debate is not even one that stems from the more intense competition when we bring in the best of their peers from all over the world. If individuals are to be denied the right to know how difficult it can be to compete with the best in their country at a young age, it is going to be a Herculean task for them to recover from the shock when they hit the labour market later. It is that denial of knowledge – in my opinion – that screams out for a moral justification, not the other way round. And culturally (or even historically, for that matter), we pride ourselves for being competitive. We like to think that we built this country based purely on our brains, based on competing first with our ASEAN neighbours and now increasingly with more countries in the world. Despite the odds, we like to think we have made it. Why now are we shying away from what ought to be the hormones for competition in our blood?
When I was in TCHS, there was a massive debate in the Chinese papers about whether PRC students coming into Singapore were posing unhealthy or even unfair competition to our Singaporean youngsters. They were more eloquent in their first language and obviously in Chinese exams and competitions, they would fare so much better. Eventually – so the argument goes – it becomes a competition largely for Chinese candidates and Singaporean students are unfairly left out. What’s the implication? To either boot the Chinese students out or set up a separate ‘enclave’ for Singaporean students and competitors to compete amongst themselves? If you ask me, the unfairness comes only when we leave the Chinese competitors out. There’s no way in which we can avoid the truth that the Chinese in the status quo will be better than us in most things Chinese (I won’t say all because I’ve come across too many Chinese PhD students in Oxford who hardly know anything about the Dream of the Red Mansions, inter alia), but does this ipso facto imply that we are going to cower in fear and wait for some panacea to come to us and solve the problem leaving everyone amicable?
I suspect that we are suggesting all these ideas to cosset our youth because of this syndrome that too many parents share: that of molly-coddling their children and confusing the boundaries between the private and public. We hear screaming and generally obnoxious children creating racket after racket in public spaces like restaurants and shopping complexes, dins which I think ought to be left only at home. Such behaviour is obviously uncalled for, usually regardless of the child’s age after he/she reaches P1. My time in the UK, US and China didn’t give me such headaches, despite our stereotypical prejudices of American kids being spoilt brats and Chinese children being kings of the household. I am honestly unsure if these children are badly behaved at home, but even if they are, they are (by and large) almost indubitably more well-behaved in public spaces than our Singaporean cluster bombs are.
This tendency in parents has translated – I suspect – into the kind of calls we read about in the papers today for students of elite institutions or indeed students who face such complexes to be given more care and attention. My take is that those who are not given the privilege to face such competition should be given more opportunities to know what ‘competition’ means today, not the other way around. Children of Singaporean parents in Singapore really need to be given that break from this almost fanatical and overbearing protection (for want of a better word) that their parents are brimming with. I dread to think what’s going to happen one or two generations later when they grow up and pule about how the going is so tough out there. Before we know it, we’ll be gone.
Let’s not quibble about the definition value in a school that eventually makes it elite or not. Elitism and elite-ness in Singapore have taken on very unique meanings of their own that may or may not be shared by other English speakers elsewhere, in my opinion. There is almost an air of exclusivity not just in elitism (which is probably a legitimate property of that concept) but also in being an elite. It’s partly due to the gleeful politicization as effected by our political leaders; the scholarship system that is almost crowded out by the state and the attendant implications that those who get the scholarships are considered ‘elite’ desperately narrows the idea of being an elite. In Singapore, being an elite is not just about being the best in your field. It is about being one of the best in the very specific ambit of academic and subsequently public service success. It is hard to understand ‘elite’ in the context of the business setting in Singapore. Sim Wong Hoo, Olivia Lum and even maybe even David Gan, some of the self-made rags-to-riches business celebrities that I have so much reverence for, are successful and especially for the former two, entrepreneurs. Nonetheless, we cannot – in Singapore’s socio-linguistic context – consider them elites, because while ‘political elites’ makes sense, ‘business elites’ is a weakly-linked oxymoron to most minds.
But enough said about the words. I am more taken aback by the point that was raised and I have reproduced in the last line of the first paragraph. Those working closely with the students who tend to be more afflicted by such superiority or inferiority complexes as the survey suggests or portends ought to give more attention to the latter. Parents apparently are also concerned about sending their children to such ‘elite’ institutions because of the propensity for their children to come out either wetting their pants or having a sprained neck from sticking their noses in the clouds for too long. Competition – which they think is at the heart of the problem, given its almost unbridled intense presence and ubiquity in such institutions – is what we need to be careful of. Teenagers (the ST interviewed 15-24 year-olds) to young persons cannot handle competition of that sort, so we must all be very chary about how it moulds them into worse characters.
This is said notwithstanding the obvious fact that these institutions have been churning out successful individuals continually. Of course there are black sheep occasionally, but that’s the case everywhere. Teenagers and young persons in my opinion are a lot hardier than these molly-coddling parents, teachers and counselors in favour of such a prescription think they are. It’s without doubt that the learning will be both in the classroom (in terms of actual course content) and beyond (in terms of learning how to interact with people who have shown themselves to be either doggedly conscientious or very intelligent), and there are those who will learn more slowly, possibly because they tend more to suffer from the alleged complexes, but why should there not be sufficient room for these students to learn all these important skills? Competition that is more intense than that awaits them if they want to be successful in their professional life in future, because they will likely be competing with more intelligent and hardworking persons from all over the world, if the globalisation argument has its way in the labour market this young man or woman is to work in subsequently. Why do we shield them from such competition, or indeed why do we even have to fear it or orchestrate its possible recession from the scenes?
I find this argument from fear an argument from paranoia. And I think this is partly because I see a gross parallel here with the arguments that protectionist governments like to articulate to shield their economies from the forces of competition that constitute the inevitable phenomenon of globalisation. Why should we do that? If farmers from France to S Korea are not bucking up, only if there is a truly indomitable moral or cultural reason to keep them alive despite the inefficiencies should we contemplate protectionism, and even then it shouldn’t be a long-term solution, but one that eases the passage to competitive production. Chirac was clearly in favour of the agrarian heritage of France, and among other things it led to the controversies surrounding France’s high tariffs on agricultural imports. It is emblematic of the French way of life, we are told, and that is probably not without a grain of truth in it. But even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, it is clear that tariffs are not going to be a long term solution, and the inefficiencies will continue to cost the country much to recover. Sarkozy’s election is probably going to be a whiff of fresh air for France, given his manifesto and mandate thus far, but we’ll keep our fingers crossed for now.
It is probably very hard to ever find such strong moral or cultural reasons for protectionism, in my opinion. Politically it is very easy to argue for this conclusion and indeed it is very often the main justification for this backlash from globalization. However, while economics and politics almost always come hand-in-hand, it is my view that politics requires the economics for continuity more than the other way around. Interregna in governance almost always come from penury in the country, and eventually, protectionism regardless of what clout a country has in the international stage will erode the political capital that a ruling party has because of the inevitable loss that the country has to suffer from protecting its industries.
Indian banks are an exception. To date, several Indian banks are still protected by the Indian government, but thankfully as has been evinced by the general spirit of the Indian government thus far, this move is taken only to streamline the local financial industry and bring forth the best few to compete in the world market. The eye of the government in this endeavour continues to be focused on preparing the banks for globalization and the ensuing competition, and protectionism in that sense is a means to that end which the government has not forsaken or hidden away from.
But look at our students. What moral or cultural reason can there possibly be to protect them from competition? And this debate is not even one that stems from the more intense competition when we bring in the best of their peers from all over the world. If individuals are to be denied the right to know how difficult it can be to compete with the best in their country at a young age, it is going to be a Herculean task for them to recover from the shock when they hit the labour market later. It is that denial of knowledge – in my opinion – that screams out for a moral justification, not the other way round. And culturally (or even historically, for that matter), we pride ourselves for being competitive. We like to think that we built this country based purely on our brains, based on competing first with our ASEAN neighbours and now increasingly with more countries in the world. Despite the odds, we like to think we have made it. Why now are we shying away from what ought to be the hormones for competition in our blood?
When I was in TCHS, there was a massive debate in the Chinese papers about whether PRC students coming into Singapore were posing unhealthy or even unfair competition to our Singaporean youngsters. They were more eloquent in their first language and obviously in Chinese exams and competitions, they would fare so much better. Eventually – so the argument goes – it becomes a competition largely for Chinese candidates and Singaporean students are unfairly left out. What’s the implication? To either boot the Chinese students out or set up a separate ‘enclave’ for Singaporean students and competitors to compete amongst themselves? If you ask me, the unfairness comes only when we leave the Chinese competitors out. There’s no way in which we can avoid the truth that the Chinese in the status quo will be better than us in most things Chinese (I won’t say all because I’ve come across too many Chinese PhD students in Oxford who hardly know anything about the Dream of the Red Mansions, inter alia), but does this ipso facto imply that we are going to cower in fear and wait for some panacea to come to us and solve the problem leaving everyone amicable?
I suspect that we are suggesting all these ideas to cosset our youth because of this syndrome that too many parents share: that of molly-coddling their children and confusing the boundaries between the private and public. We hear screaming and generally obnoxious children creating racket after racket in public spaces like restaurants and shopping complexes, dins which I think ought to be left only at home. Such behaviour is obviously uncalled for, usually regardless of the child’s age after he/she reaches P1. My time in the UK, US and China didn’t give me such headaches, despite our stereotypical prejudices of American kids being spoilt brats and Chinese children being kings of the household. I am honestly unsure if these children are badly behaved at home, but even if they are, they are (by and large) almost indubitably more well-behaved in public spaces than our Singaporean cluster bombs are.
This tendency in parents has translated – I suspect – into the kind of calls we read about in the papers today for students of elite institutions or indeed students who face such complexes to be given more care and attention. My take is that those who are not given the privilege to face such competition should be given more opportunities to know what ‘competition’ means today, not the other way around. Children of Singaporean parents in Singapore really need to be given that break from this almost fanatical and overbearing protection (for want of a better word) that their parents are brimming with. I dread to think what’s going to happen one or two generations later when they grow up and pule about how the going is so tough out there. Before we know it, we’ll be gone.
posted by kitchenofintrigues at
5:06 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home