It Works! It Works!
Koo Tsai Kee, Minister of State for Defence, argues in the ST op-ed section that “Singapore’s education system works”. On the way, he demolishes straw men and makes glib leaps of reasoning in order to deliver his three messages.
The first message is that “The elites’ children do not have a monopoly on good grades.” This is a straw man. No one ever said that it’s impossible for “non-elites” to get good grades. The question, instead, is whether the undeniable correlation between being elite and having good grades is strong enough to be worrying (or whether any such correlation should be worrying in the first place). The fact that this year’s top PSLE student came from a “non-elite” family indeed destroys that straw man. But who cares?
The second message is “the multiplying strength of diversity and social harmony.” Koo’s justification for this:
Children of all races and religions, across economic profiles, study together happily in the same environment. St Hilda’s Primary did not pre-qualify only Christians. If it did, it would have lost Natasha. Nor is the school exclusively for members of the establishment and the rich. Natasha’s father is a technician and her mother a full-time housewife.
The curious thing about this paragraph is that it seems to lack any instances of how the education system demonstrates “the multiplying strength of diversity and social harmony.” It does state that children from diverse backgrounds study in the same environment, but since this is to some extent engineered by the education system itself, it can’t be cited as evidence for its success. Or perhaps it’s the word “happily” that’s crucial here. Perhaps it’s because these children are actually happy studying with peers from different backgrounds that we are entitled to see the “strength of diversity and social harmony” in education. But Koo cites no evidence that these children are happy to study with their peers (are there any surveys that ask kids if they would be happier to study in a less diverse environment?).
“Nor is the school exclusively for members of the establishment and the rich” destroys another straw man. No one argues that good schools contain only the children of “members of the establishment and the rich”. The more common and reasonable position is that students in good schools come disproportionately from rich/establishment families. One exception to the trend does not refute the existence of the trend.
Koo’s final message is that “the system works”. Why? Because
If it didn’t, if it only produced exam-smart kids, then how does one account for the success of modern Singapore? What fuels this metropolis? The answer is smart Singaporeans. With limited natural resources and limited human resources, it is the quality of the people that matters. Quality education delivers quality people. Nothing else does.
As if the earlier setting up of straw men had not already given us some hints, this passage demonstrates that Koo is simply not interested in addressing critics of Singapore’s education system on their own grounds. Instead he sets up his own grounds and expects critics to nod sagely in agreement. Many critics would not agree that
- Modern Singapore is “successful”. They could fail to accept this either because Koo’s definition of success differs from theirs (and we will never know since, to make it all the easier to knock down straw men, Koo does not define “success”), or because even if they accept that Singapore is successful in a certain sense, they don’t accept that this kind of success can be credited to our education system.
- The only way Singapore could be “successful” is through having “quality people”.
- “Quality people” can be delivered only by “quality education”.
But Koo rides on these premises to come to his grand conclusion. Such an argument is unlikely to convince anyone who isn’t already convinced, and hence is nothing more than the literary equivalent of patting yourself on the back.
At the end of his essay Koo inserts a couple of somewhat disconnected points that are also worth taking down:
In the Natasha story, her score of 294 is outstanding, but it is the average score of the average PSLE student that vindicates our system.
Here, it should be noted that the average literacy level in Singapore is very high. And the average Singapore student has consistently done well in international benchmarking tests.
Again, this presumes that the international benchmarking tests referred to and literacy level are good measures of the quality of an education system. As I understand it, most critics do not accept that premise. One of the most common criticisms of the Singapore education system is that it is overly obsessed in getting students through the pipeline of examinations, instead of building up other aspects of a student’s skills, knowledge and character. In fact, Koo himself had implicitly acknowledged that exams alone are not a good measure of educational quality in writing “if [the education system] only produced exam-smart kids, then how does one account for the success of modern Singapore?” Yet three paragraphs later he proceeds to use exam results as the fact that “vindicates our system”.
haha.nice one.
spot on dude! nice article
Comment by yonanz — November 27, 2007 @ 5:41 am
Not the first time he has written rubbish which the States Times obediently publishes. And won’t be the last.
Yawning Bread has pointed out the calibre of this guy who has never had one vote casted for him in the GE before.
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2006/yax-540.htm
Comment by vince — November 27, 2007 @ 6:04 am
A lot of hot air?
Comment by George — November 27, 2007 @ 6:43 am
The KTM would be most grateful if you would perhaps clarify the point of this post. Are you disputing the statement that “our education system works”?
The first statement that (a) “The elites’ children do not have a monopoly on good grades” is actually true (unless you’d like to prove otherwise). The KTM believes that this statement is more significant than (b) “the more common and reasonable position is that students in good schools come disproportionately from rich/establishment families”. (b) is probably true in ANY society and it’s not a problem (who doesn’t know that being rich has its advantages?); (a) is not.
You claim that “Koo is simply not interested in addressing critics of Singapore’s education system on their own grounds”. Perhaps you can clarify what are the criticisms that Koo should have been addressing?
Comment by Kway Teow Man — November 27, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
KTM,
I called (a) a straw man because I do not believe there is a single critic of Singapore’s education system who thinks that the elites have a strict monopoly on the education system. Critiques have always centered on how the non-elites are severely disadvantaged in the education system. But I haven’t seen the absolute assertion that it is outright impossible for a non-elite to game the system. I don’t know what you mean by (a) being ‘more significant’. What I do know is that critics focus on (b) and certainly do not assert the obviously wrong (a), so it is meaningless to refute (a). Before this years top PSLE student, there were plenty of non-elites who got good grades. No one disputes that such people exist. The concern is rather that it is somewhat too difficult (but not impossible) for non-elites to succeed. I disagree that (b) is not a problem. While it may be impossible to eradicate (b), it is certainly possible to lessen the existing inequalities. When the disproportionality gets too large, it is a problem. Besides, just because it’s true in any society doesn’t mean it’s not a problem. Disease and violence exist in any society, are they then not problems?
Comment by twasher — November 28, 2007 @ 11:38 am
As for your second question, I said that Koo did not address critics on their own grounds, not that he did not address their criticisms (although the latter is true as well). By that I mean that many critics would not accept the three premises of his argument that I numbered above, and he makes no attempt to justify those premises.
But since you brought it up, I also think he has not addressed the following criticisms:
1. Singaporeans are trained to be good at rote learning, but not at reasoning by themselves, thinking coherently, writing, and possibly ‘creativity’ (whatever that is).
2. (b) in your comment.
Comment by twasher — November 28, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Twasher,
I don’t know what you mean by (a) being ‘more significant’.
Apologies for the sloppiness. By significant, the KTM means “more worthy of note”, “surprising” or “worth highlighting”. For example, comparing between two statements — “the sun will rise in the east tomorrow” and “eating garlic can cure cancer”, the KTM would consider the latter more “significant” (if it were true) since it is less expected and more “surprising”.
The KTM’s view is that (b) is damn obviously true and has to be true. (a) on the other hand is not an obviously true statement for many societies. Hopefully this resolves the confusion.
“do not assert the obviously wrong (a), so it is meaningless to refute (a)”
The KTM believes that (a) is obviously true (and not obviously wrong as you say) - and if critics don’t try to refute (a), does it mean that (a) is not something worth highlighting?
Thank you for your clarifications. If you would so kindly oblige the KTM, perhaps clarify your views on the following issues:
1. You claim that (b) is a “problem”. Perhaps you can explain why you think it’s a problem? You have juxtaposed (b) with disease and violence. Suppose you are rich, should you not be permitted to send your kid to the best school (or so you think) that money can buy? Suppose there are rich people who can do that, is it thereby the responsibility of the State to ensure that every other kid is also sent to the same schools on public funds…. but if you do that, it means that the rich man also shouldn’t have to pay right? Public funds mah.
2. You claim that “Koo did not address critics on their own grounds, not that he did not address their criticisms”. Perhaps. But you are so sure that Koo was trying to address the criticisms on the education system? Is addressing criticisms on the education system Koo’s business (note that Koo is MOS (Defence) not MOS(Education))? Consider another thought experiment: suppose the letter writer was not a politician, but a random person. Would it have made a difference?
3. You mentioned that “critics have always centered on how the non-elites are severely disadvantaged in the education system”. Perhaps you can share with us the basis for this criticism. On what grounds do critics claim that “non-elites are severely disadvantaged in the education system”?
You say that critics claim that “it is somewhat too difficult (but not impossible) for non-elites to succeed”. On what grounds do they make such a claim? How is difficulty measured?
Thanks.
Comment by Kway Teow Man — November 28, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
I’m still learning from you, but I’m improving myself. I definitely liked reading everything that is written on your blog.Keep the information coming. I liked it!
Comment by louis vuitton neverfull mm — March 2, 2012 @ 10:05 am
Coach Outlet Online sharply developed in the past ten years when the Coach Factory Outlet gradually reduced their sales and Coach Factory put out more styles of products.
Comment by Coach Factory — May 12, 2012 @ 1:49 am