Forum Letter Replies
Equal Chances for All
We refer to the Straits Times Editorial (8 Sep) “Scholarships and the cut of relative merit”.
Meritocracy is one of Singapore’s fundamental values and critical success factors. Every Singaporean, regardless of family background and circumstances, should have full opportunities to realise his potential. But we should not confuse meritocracy where each succeeds based on his abilities with affirmative action which seeks to equalise outcomes.
All government scholarships, including those from the Public Service Commission (PSC), are awarded strictly on merit. We encourage students from all family backgrounds to apply. There is no quota, so when two candidates are equally deserving, we never have to discriminate in favour of the student from a poorer background—we give the award to both.
About half of PSC scholars live in private property, but this is not because the system is unfair or un-meritocratic. One major reason is because they are likely to have able parents who have benefited from our meritocratic system. Successful parents then have children who are also likely to be able. This happens in every society, whether because of nature or nurture.
We will do our utmost to give students from less privileged backgrounds as equal a start in life as possible. That is why we invest so much in education, not just in the top schools and universities, but also in all our neighbourhood schools, the ITE and Polytechnics. We want every child to have the maximum chance of succeeding.
We have many bursaries and financial assistance schemes, from kindergarten all the way to university. Needy students also receive help to buy computers, attend enrichment programmes and go on overseas exchange programmes.
These schemes have helped many students to move up and do well. No deserving student is denied entry into a top school for lack of money. In short, we seek to level up everyone, not to pull down the successful. In this, we have done far better than many developing or developed countries.
One of Singapore’s strengths is that a good number of our most able students, including those from well-off families, see purpose in public service and take up government scholarships. Our challenge is ensuring that outstanding students continue to do so in spite of the many attractive alternatives open to young people today. It would be Singapore’s loss, and contrary to our fundamental values, to penalise students for their parents’ success, and deny capable students scholarships simply because they come from well-off families.
Secretary, Public Service Commission
Deputy Secretary (Policy), Ministry of Education
Scholarships and the cut of relative merit (ST Editorial, 8/9, pA17)
AS APPLICATIONS open for next year’s Public Service Commission (PSC) scholarships, the widening income gap is prompting questions about the merit criterion by which the PSC awards them. Spring Singapore chairman Philip Yeo may have put more than just scholarships up for a rethink when he said that, all things being equal, applicants from poorer families should get preference. Meritocracy has served many aspects of public life too well for the debate to focus only on scholarships. Diluting the principle in one area may erode perceptions and practices in others. Far better than avoiding the subject, however, a full and open discussion will help get to the root of the issue: Has meritocracy gone from promoting social mobility to hampering it? Does the playing field need to be made more level so as not to disadvantage otherwise deserving Singaporeans who for one reason or other might have fallen behind in the competitive scholarship race?
There is no clear answer. It pays to be alert to trends that PSC and other scholarship selection data may indicate. The PSC disclosure that 47 per cent of this year’s scholarship recipients lived in Housing Board flats and 53 per cent were in private housing is a statistical snapshot of a near-even divide. The disparity becomes obvious when those numbers are viewed against the fact that 85 per cent of Singaporeans live in HDB estates. In response to Mr Yeo’s comments, the PSC has said that if there are two equally deserving candidates from different backgrounds, it will award the scholarship to both. But even taking this into account, it is not impossible that richer successful applicants will in future predominate by a larger margin.
When that happens, there will be increasing pressure to change the way scholarships are awarded. What will happen if, for example, the day arrives when 80 per cent of scholarship holders come from families living in private housing?
It will become increasingly difficult to ignore the advantages students from higher income families have: more effective mentoring at home, better schools and tutors and—something the PSC also takes into account besides academic grades—an edge in co-curricular activities.
Rather than fixing the problem at selection time and risk eroding the merit principle, attention needs to focus on what changes in the education system or elsewhere may have resulted in the trend of poorer applicants trailing the richer ones in the scholarship shareout. Merit should remain the main consideration but flexibility can be shown when circumstances demand it.