you're reading...

Government Scholarships: Merit And Need

In response to Public Service Commission (PSC) chairman Mr. Eddie Teo’s proclamation that the PSC is seeking for greater diversity, Mr. Devadas Krishnadas argued that “[g]overnment scholarships should be engines of social mobility and be awarded based on a mix of merit and need, and not just different kinds of merit”. That proposition could have generated some dissonance a few years ago (after all, it has been the guiding pillar within the public sector) but against a background of rising socio-economic inequality, Mr. Krishnadas’s perspective is steadily gaining traction.

Should we – and is it even possible – to fairly quantify inherited advantages and disadvantages?

Many, in the past year, have offered variations of “meritocracy”: a “fair meritocracy”, a “compassionate meritocracy”, a “Singaporean meritocracy”. It is perhaps fair to assume that the PSC has moved beyond the convenient equation of merit with scholastic performance, to take into consideration different achievements or contributions of its applicants. While our education system has always been fixated with academics, perceptions are shifting slowly – but surely.

So the definitions of “merit” seem to be changing; yet, the more fundamental question here is whether this notion of “need” should feature in the selection of our public scholars. Of course, knowing the household income distribution of past recipients would inform this discussion better (I only recall a 2008 Straits Times piece revealing the types of houses its scholars lived in, for that particular year), because a move to include “need” represents quite a significant shift from the status quo. One could argue that a “need”-based system discriminates against students from the well-to-do families (who never had a choice), especially since government scholarships offer more than just financial compensation. Should we – and is it even possible to – fairly quantify inherited advantages and disadvantages?

The perceived incompatibility between “merit” and “need” at this level means that there will be political costs for the government to bear. Should it retain what has worked with tremendous efficiency, or should it pander to the growing voices of dissent?

Some might also postulate that the purported stratification of PSC scholars seems to be the product – and not the cause – of our inequities. What can the PSC genuinely do in the face of these entrenched differences, made more pronounced over the years? The individual scholarship sum is substantial (and symbolic), but policy interventions against these collective disparities should have emerged much earlier on. These would mean diversifying how we and our schools view “success”, and strengthening our pre-school education. Surely that is more manageable and productive in the long run.

Will the PSC take this  risk? I doubt it. It can staunchly maintain that these are scholarships, not bursaries.

Maybe the anxieties of race-based affirmative action across the Causeway has convinced many that preferential treatment is necessarily deleterious. But can we approach this from a socio-economic angle? If applicant A and B display similar levels of competencies – results, co-curricular accomplishments, leadership or community service – but A has conscientiously worked his or her way up through dysfunctional or disadvantaged circumstances, why shouldn’t he or she be given the edge? If this act implies a need to move away from a pedantic (albeit long-standing) focus upon “merit” per se, especially in the face of apparent helplessness against income disparities in Singapore, then why not?

About guanyinmiao

A man of knowledge lives by acting, not by thinking about acting. Carlos Castaneda.


7 thoughts on “Government Scholarships: Merit And Need

  1. All discussion of merit or meritocracy assumes a unitary or objective standard. This is false and unproductive. Choosing a scholar is as subjective as choosing a beauty queen though the PSC would be the last to admit it. You can see what I mean when you see that by shifting the criteria just that little different aspirants are awarded the scholarships. Why has the issue of scholarship awards not seen such public angst in other countries? The reason, i suggest, is the way we treat scholars – rewarding them with fast track paths to glory in the armed forces, civil service, etc. Many are made MInisters. The whole system of governance revolves around them. The thinking behind this, the brainchild of the great man, is so crude that it is surprising no one challenged it. If you are bright academically you will make a good commander in the armed forces, the police, the civil service and politically, so the thinking goes. It serves the powers that be because it ensures their hold on power – they can determine who gets to advance and who does not. Their so-called difficulty in getting suitable to serve politically is a self-inflicted problem. Take the case of a man like Tommy Koh. Can anyone doubt that he is of ministerial calibre? Yet he is not there because, as he said, he is too much of a boy scout. No one is allowed to come through the crucible of political contest. The Tan Wah Piows, Chee Soon Juans are put to the sword and not allowed to prove their worth. If they are unworthy surely the citizens are smart enough to reject them at some time or another.

    Posted by ;Annonymous | September 25, 2013, 4:55 pm
    • I suppose the mindset is also: why fix something if it ain’t broken? Another implication of what you’ve explained is the inevitable creation of glass ceilings, which proves to be unfair for late bloomers, or individuals who might not “fit” the supposed standard or template of a “scholar”.

      Generally speaking though, the PSC appears to be quite effective in terms of identifying applicants who are most likely to do well in the future.

      Jin Yao

      Posted by guanyinmiao | September 27, 2013, 9:38 pm


  1. Pingback: Daily SG: 25 Sep 2013 | The Singapore Daily - September 25, 2013

  2. Pingback: Government Scholarships: Merit And Need | MemePosts - September 26, 2013

  3. Pingback: Affirmation Action Is A Dirty Term In Singapore | guanyinmiao's musings - October 2, 2013

  4. Pingback: Making Sense Of Teacher Feedback | guanyinmiao's musings - October 11, 2013

  5. Pingback: Diversity Of Public Servants Matters Too | guanyinmiao's musings - November 2, 2015

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Follow guanyinmiao's musings on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,389 other followers


%d bloggers like this: