Woes of a meritocratic , inclusive society
Singapore is a meritocratic society, any progress is made on basis of merit and not of wealth, status ,race or religion. We are also an inclusive society, we include the less able, the elderly and the sick.We give them an equal fighting chance to mark their spot in the Singapore Dream.
Meritocracy and Inclusion- 2 very noble concepts.Except even noble concepts would be tainted by ignorance; ignorance in the form of individuals who do not have a clue as to why they are involved in most of what it may be they are involved in.
During the 2 year stint in National Service, male citizens become very familiar with a particular term, that evokes disgust and anger to the hearer apon utterance; the term "wayang" or " to play act ". In a bid to get ahead some of us play act to convince our superiors that we are hardworking and worthy of promotion. I experience afresh the very essense of this word as I engage my teammates on my social service project.
Firstly, meritocracy means, to be rewarded based on merit. And in a drive to create an inclusive society, participation in community service has become an avenue of chalking up merit , and we see eager students all over participating in flag days and finding themselves in homes for the elderly.
This might be controversial.In a bid to appear like they are participating some may "wayang" their way and end up causing more harm than good to the needy.
I relate an incident that happened not too long ago.We had a meeting to discuss the activities we could incorporate into a 2 day workshop for a children's home. A very "enthusiastic" teammate of mine, an Indian girl, suggested with much confidence, almost beaming," oh we could bring in kids with normal families to give them a talk or speech on how to live a good life or the model life..the children in the home will be touched. Besides children relate to children..I think its a very good idea." She was confident and beaming, almost proud of herself for making a worthy contribution, and thus being one of the more vocal females in the team.
I didnt know wheather to be amused or to be appalled at her suggestion. My reaction was a mixture of both.
No 1. Kids with normal families are in no place to be models for children in volunteer homes. A kid who has a normal family has no reason to be anything other than well behaved. He or she is already well provided for. It would be amazingly insensitive to make a less fortunate kid sit down and listen to a kid who got the better deal so early in life, go on about how he should live his life. It would not only hurt the kids in the home deeply ,serving to remind them of their challenging family situations, it would also throw them to despair in the hopeless yearning for a normal family, a source of love and support.Besides a peer who is more fortunate will certainly have the least impact on these kids for obvious reasons.
No 2. It is very stereotypical and insensitive to suggest that kids with problematic family conditions turn out to be delinquents or would require the guidance of their more fortunate peers.That is like judging the children for another's mistake.
No 3. A practical concern. These kids from homes attend normal mainstream schools and their identities are confidential.Perhaps the girl in concern, the enthusiatic vocal teamate wasnt aware of this. Why would she be? All she wanted to do, was gain the appreciation of her fellow team mates for her contribution, however mindless it was.If we brought in the other kids from the mainstream, their identities will be compromised and their already hard lives would be made even harder, having to deal with embarassment and inquisitive stares from their mates.
Singapore has an enviable economy due to our system of meritocracy and we live in harmony due to our system of inclusion. I have nothing against this teammate of mine, after all we do belong to an inclusive society, her views too will be included...the woes..of inclusion and meritocracy...
Singapore is a meritocratic society, any progress is made on basis of merit and not of wealth, status ,race or religion. We are also an inclusive society, we include the less able, the elderly and the sick.We give them an equal fighting chance to mark their spot in the Singapore Dream.
Meritocracy and Inclusion- 2 very noble concepts.Except even noble concepts would be tainted by ignorance; ignorance in the form of individuals who do not have a clue as to why they are involved in most of what it may be they are involved in.
During the 2 year stint in National Service, male citizens become very familiar with a particular term, that evokes disgust and anger to the hearer apon utterance; the term "wayang" or " to play act ". In a bid to get ahead some of us play act to convince our superiors that we are hardworking and worthy of promotion. I experience afresh the very essense of this word as I engage my teammates on my social service project.
Firstly, meritocracy means, to be rewarded based on merit. And in a drive to create an inclusive society, participation in community service has become an avenue of chalking up merit , and we see eager students all over participating in flag days and finding themselves in homes for the elderly.
This might be controversial.In a bid to appear like they are participating some may "wayang" their way and end up causing more harm than good to the needy.
I relate an incident that happened not too long ago.We had a meeting to discuss the activities we could incorporate into a 2 day workshop for a children's home. A very "enthusiastic" teammate of mine, an Indian girl, suggested with much confidence, almost beaming," oh we could bring in kids with normal families to give them a talk or speech on how to live a good life or the model life..the children in the home will be touched. Besides children relate to children..I think its a very good idea." She was confident and beaming, almost proud of herself for making a worthy contribution, and thus being one of the more vocal females in the team.
I didnt know wheather to be amused or to be appalled at her suggestion. My reaction was a mixture of both.
No 1. Kids with normal families are in no place to be models for children in volunteer homes. A kid who has a normal family has no reason to be anything other than well behaved. He or she is already well provided for. It would be amazingly insensitive to make a less fortunate kid sit down and listen to a kid who got the better deal so early in life, go on about how he should live his life. It would not only hurt the kids in the home deeply ,serving to remind them of their challenging family situations, it would also throw them to despair in the hopeless yearning for a normal family, a source of love and support.Besides a peer who is more fortunate will certainly have the least impact on these kids for obvious reasons.
No 2. It is very stereotypical and insensitive to suggest that kids with problematic family conditions turn out to be delinquents or would require the guidance of their more fortunate peers.That is like judging the children for another's mistake.
No 3. A practical concern. These kids from homes attend normal mainstream schools and their identities are confidential.Perhaps the girl in concern, the enthusiatic vocal teamate wasnt aware of this. Why would she be? All she wanted to do, was gain the appreciation of her fellow team mates for her contribution, however mindless it was.If we brought in the other kids from the mainstream, their identities will be compromised and their already hard lives would be made even harder, having to deal with embarassment and inquisitive stares from their mates.
Singapore has an enviable economy due to our system of meritocracy and we live in harmony due to our system of inclusion. I have nothing against this teammate of mine, after all we do belong to an inclusive society, her views too will be included...the woes..of inclusion and meritocracy...
posted by The Sch O Hard Knockx at 3:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home