The myth of the ‘level playing field’
The latest nugget of wisdom from the Great Leader:
Third, we have a level playing field for all citizens. No one is disadvantaged by our national policies whatever their race, language or religion. Fourth, English is our working language. We did not choose Chinese, the language of the majority. English gives everyone an equal chance to master the language.
Now, your “chances” of mastering any language are clearly highly dependent on how much your family speaks that language at home. As it turns out, Malay families tend to use English much less at home compared to Chinese and Indian families. Is it any wonder then that Malays tend to perform worse on their English exams? Do you think Malay children really have an ‘equal chance’ to master the language?
Please note that I am not advocating using some other language as the working language. I’m merely pointing out that using our language policy to argue that our education system offers equal opportunities and is meritocratic is disingenuous. Maybe the choice of English is the most fair option available, even if it still contains elements of unfairness. There is a real argument to be had over that. But please do not make the blatantly false claim that our national policies do not disadvantage any particular race or language.
I think that the claim still holds. The disadvantage comes from the backgrounds of the individuals in question (thus the phrase disadvantaged backgrounds), not the educational policies.
Comment by solitairejoker — August 16, 2010 @ 12:49 am
There was no mention of backgrounds whatsoever in the speech. The point is that the disadvantageous backgrounds are ignored in most discussions of meritocracy. As an individual the child does not have an equal chance; it is not the child’s fault that s/he was born with a certain socio-economic background but they are penalised for it.
In any case, I’m a bit puzzled as to how one can put the blame solely on the background and not the policy. Suppose the policy was that the national language should be Mandarin. Then one could also say, following your argument, that the disadvantage comes from the backgrounds of Malay parents, specifically their not speaking Mandarin. I imagine this excuse would not go down too well with most people. So why is it that when the ‘background’ is a lack of proficiency in English, then it is the background’s problem, but when the ‘background’ is a lack of proficiency in Mandarin, then it isn’t?
Comment by twasher — August 16, 2010 @ 11:43 am
Whoops. I meant ‘working language’, not ‘national language’.
Comment by twasher — August 16, 2010 @ 11:51 am
So long as national policies require citizens to pay for them, the poor will be disadvantaged! It’s a vicious cycle!
Comment by hahaha — August 17, 2010 @ 6:20 am
hahaha:
Yes, that is correct. Which is why the myth of meritocracy is so damaging. It’s one thing to claim that our educational policies are the best compromise available, and another to claim that they create equal opportunities. When the latter myth is propagated, then all future manifestations of differences in abilities end up being “blamed” on the person’s genes/culture/attitude, absolving the government from all responsibility to do something about the poor performers.
Comment by twasher — August 17, 2010 @ 12:11 pm