Re: Re: Of Fireworks and Meritocracy, and some other thoughts

Preamble

Original post here.

Well it turned out to be a scholarships rant. ^^ And only Wally was interested, apparently. But maaan... I think you've badly understood me. The rant was descriptive, not prescriptive; I think if you read closely enough you'll find that I'm describing the state of affairs as it is now, certainly not as it ought to be.

As for my own opinion, yeah, I do feel that more weight should be given to an applicant's financial neediness - US universities have a far more rigorous system than Singaporean scholarship boards (or at least the ones I applied to, apparently) and I think our system has a fair bit more to go. Or maybe the Singaporean boards didn't need to ask for my tax returns, number of siblings, family assets, value of home etc. because they already knew it all (that's a scary thought!).

[A note on financial aid for US universities: to apply for it, I believe all US unis require you to fill in a FASFA form (Free Application for Federal Student Aid, have I got it right?) and send in supporting documentation - it's a pretty comprehensive thing that's meant to assess your family income, expenses, assets and ability to pay fees. You have to submit tax returns, estimate your family's yearly expenditure, info on property, bank accounts, other assets, expected expenses, how many kids your family's supporting through university and their fees, all that stuff. True, it's a lot of info to provide, but it gives a pretty good - and fair, I believe - picture of your ability to pay.]

-----

More on Scholarships

I think there's a certain unfortunate conflict between the motives of many scholarship providers (at least, many in Singapore), and the loftier ideals that scholarships are supposed to uphold. After all, many scholarship providers here use their schemes to scoop up talent, fund people and then tie them down for a substantial period (usually 6 years). Yes, you get returns on your capital outlay like that which makes financial sense in a narrow way. But in the end the focus on returns inevitably leads to a focus on finding the brightest students. And brightest is not necessarily neediest - unfortunately it's often the opposite, for various socio-economic reasons (expanding upon this would be a whole new post but I'll get round to it someday; for now I'll just say that there is a small positive correlation between family wealth and educational achievement - which I feel is unfortunate, and reflects a failing on the part of our system).

And so scholarships - especially those where financial need is not explicitly a criterion - often go to those who actually could comfortably finance their studies, sometimes at the expense of those who can't. 

I do have a suggestion, one that I believe would make sense to everyone but the financial controllers at PSC. I think they should introduce a new class of bond-free scholarships, tenable for studying anywhere in the world. Sure, they're not adding value to Singapore's government; sure, they aren't directly attracting talent to fill the ranks of the civil service. But after all, the Service is charged with the mission of serving Singapore (the clue is in the name, duh), and one of the best ways it could do that, I feel, is to release our best minds out into the field, to whatever job best challenges them and fulfils their potential. After all, the cold brutal logic of the job market is, in short

• highest renumeration = most value created, and
• people are attracted to the highest renumeration offered.

The idea is, no matter where they are, the money spent on financing their education will be more than repaid by the economic activity they generate, wherever they may be (to say nothing of the more intangible good that would do to us as an economy and a society). And I'm sure, some will naturally enter the civil service, for whatever reason - job satisfaction, fulfilment, gratitude, loyalty, salaries... especially salaries...

-----

PSC

I didn't take up a PSC scholarship, as you guys know. I was extremely put off by the parochial, stiff way their thoughts were structured. I will never forget Dr Andrew Chew, (ex-)Chairman of the PSC, labelling me a "human rights activist". Nor, in particular, the manner in which he did it. Admittedly, the exact words escape me now, but I remember vividly the heavy accusatory tone he used. (I wish I could do what Joe did to Jaggers in Dickens' Great Expectations) He seized upon my application essay, in which I described myself as a humanist:

Secular humanism is perhaps a rather uncommon set of beliefs to adhere to, but I identify with its affirmation of humanity's self-worth, innate dignity and ultimate ability to shape its own destiny, and I strongly believe in the fundamental premise of humanism: having faith and respect in the humanity's ability to achieve excellence. This to me implies that I should both strive for excellence in my pursuits, and help others to do the same wherever possible.

This to him, he said, meant that I was a human rights activist. I was utterly dumbfounded. Whether he was baiting me by deliberately appearing naive in order to elicit a thoughtful response, or whether he genuinely believed that humanist equates to human rights activist, I will never know. What I do know is that in Singapore, particularly in the government, the term human rights activist, and more broadly activist, is an epithet used to describe those moths to a flame who seek and often fail to rouse public opinion against the establishment, or the government, or the order of things as they are. This makes the term a term of insult, especially coming from a senior civil servant.

I could not speak my mind that day, partly for fear of his health (he's not young!), and partly for the hope of leaving the room alive, intact, and a free man. Today, for whatever it's worth, I have a reply:

If human rights activist means I'm a heckler and a picketer, a disturber of the public order for lofty and misguided ideals, then no, I'm not a human rights activist. But from another perspective; if being human - being who I am, and believing in my humanity and therefore my ability to achieve distinction and escape mediocrity, and upholding those beliefs - if that makes me a human rights activist, then I'm proud to be one; only a witless fool would think otherwise.

Because how can you be human, and not believe in humanity? Because if you don't believe in humanity, you don't believe in yourself, and the only logical alternative is the loss of purpose and self-direction; worse, suicide. 

-----

End

I've gone way beyond Daniel's points, to another of my favourite pet peeves, the civil service. I believe everything's interconnected; I believe what Dr Chew characterised me as revealed in one masterstroke the mindset that he had, and also the deep interest he has in maintaining the established order of things, the status quo. I'm sure his mindset has hugely influenced many civil servants; he and many of those around him are no intellectual pushovers, they've undoubtedly got calibre and influence that I don't possess.

But with all due respect I disagree with Dr Chew and his ilk on that one fundamental point, the (lack of) importance they place on humanity, and I know this mindset permeates through to the way things are run here. I believe this is wrong - sure, they've given us prosperity, but at no small cost to our souls and our sense of perspective as a people (speaking not of an amorphous faceless nation, but a people) - and I cannot stay silent, because I know things are wrong, and silence is the refuge of a coward.

(This post is in sections for the convenience of those who want to comment; but I doubt there'll be many, I'm not an MP's son unlike a more illustrious RJC alumna ^^ and this is a far more esoteric issue. Who cares anyway?)