| By Janice Heng | ||
|
|
 One step in the right direction is increased spending on kindergartens. This will help level the playing field. -- ST FILE PHOTO
| |
Yet, in the face of growing income inequality, one should ask if the Singapore story is in danger of becoming a myth.
Seventeen years ago, then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong said in his first National Day Rally speech that 40 per cent of all past President's Scholars had had humble beginnings and lived in HDB flats. Mr Goh was referring to recipients of Singapore's most prestigious scholarship from 1966 to 1991.
But of the 61 President's scholars from 1992 onwards, only five had parents who were not professionals, white-collar or engineers. The last was in 2001.
Singapore's education system has lifted up students from humble backgrounds. But if the academically successful now come disproportionately from higher-income families, then the gears of social mobility may be in need of some oiling.
Meritocracy is the engine of Singapore's social mobility. But meritocracy can promote social mobility only if one's starting point does not greatly affect one's chances of academic success. If academic achievement is easier for those with privileged backgrounds, it would be possible to have both meritocracy and equality of opportunity without social mobility.
Humble family backgrounds may prevent students from developing to their full potential - and hence from entering top schools or achieving other measures of academic success. And a privileged background can make it easier for a child to succeed.
From private kindergartens to tuition and enrichment classes, money can provide an academic edge. Well-off parents can also make their children's education a priority in a way that poorer families may not. Children from humbler backgrounds may have to help their parents make ends meet instead of studying. For a poor, bright student to have the same chances of success as a rich, bright one, meritocracy and formal equality of opportunity alone may not be enough.
The former chief of the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star), Mr Philip Yeo, acknowledged as much last month when he suggested that meritocracy should take into account the disadvantages faced by those from poorer backgrounds. Given two scholarship applicants with equally good grades, Mr Yeo said he would give the scholarship to the one from a poorer family.
Less than 20 per cent of families here live in private housing. But 53 per cent of the 2008 batch of Public Service Commission scholars came from private housing, up from 47 per cent in 2005. Among this year's A*Star scholars, the figure was 43 per cent.
Of course, one still hears inspiring stories of brilliant students from modest backgrounds. Last year's top scorer in the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) was from a working-class family. And the top 5 per cent of pupils in the 2007 PSLE came not just from 'brand-name' schools.
But these inspiring stories tend to dry up the higher up the education ladder one goes. Education Minister Ng Eng Hen gave data on the housing profile of local undergraduates in Parliament in April. Pupils from four-room or smaller flats constituted 60 per cent of the Primary 1 cohorts from 1990 to 1992. Students from these cohorts would be in university now if they had qualified. But only 44 per cent of the local undergraduates from these batches are from four-room or smaller flats. If those pursuing overseas education were included, that percentage would probably fall further.
It is inevitable that social mobility would decline as society becomes richer. Rapid social mobility is easier to achieve when starting from a lower base. When a generation largely of blue-collar workers was followed by a generation with a larger middle class, the number of people who would have done better than their parents was naturally high.
But what is worrying is not so much that social mobility has stalled but the extent to which it has. Obviously, the solution to this problem is not to do away with meritocracy. But we should not accept this stalling as a cruel fact of life. More can be done to ensure that all not only have equal opportunities but are better equipped to seize them.
One step in the right direction is increased spending on kindergartens. As PM Lee noted in his rally speech, good kindergartens can help children from humble backgrounds 'start from a more equal starting point when they go to school'. Schemes like the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme can make preschool education more accessible.
But the education system alone cannot drive social mobility if other levelling factors are absent. Direct assistance to poorer households, for instance, can reduce the financial burden of poor parents and give their children a better learning environment - and a better chance of moving up in life.
If we want poorer students to be able to climb society's ladder, perhaps we need to give them a leg up.
The 20-year-old writer is a Singapore Press Holdings scholar studying at Oxford University. Her family lives in an HDB executive flat.
Recent Comments