Before I become a public good (12/12)

i enjoy reading the forum in the straits times. because always there are some puerile articles that make you spit hard on them. sometimes there are also articles that make you go, what was tan kin lian doing in his time as ceo? sometimes, some articles make you think hard about things you held true.

in today's copy there is this article about giftedness being something that one can nurture. basically. this parent was talking about how people can spend up to 2000 per subject at p2 to prepare for the gep test at p3, when giftedness is supposedly innate. and then 2000 is a princely sum that many would not be able to afford, so in the end gep ends up helping those already privileged members of society somewhat at the expense of the masses. and then how life is tough and unfair. i think that was implied.

in the first place i think there is an extent to which one can prepare for the gifted test. the test is probably not foolproof and evidently, some fools like myself do get through. of course, i didnt prepare for it, for if i did, i wouldnt have flunked in in p3 and live out the rest of my primary school in anguish, pain and misery.

i remember that day my world collapsed around me.

i still have that computer generated letter, all yellowed, in my possession to remind me that life can give you lemons.

but even if there are people who can train the children for the test rather successfully, i do not think that most people, at least from my batch had such training. in fact, i know for a fact that a respectable number of people never had tuition. and most of them are really brilliant people.

anyway, i dont think it would be unfair if people could get to places in society because they have been afforded an opportunity such as this. i have to agree that 2000 per subject is exhorbitant, but hey, if the method is tried, tested and proven, why not? anyway, nothing in society has ever been completely fair, and it would be foolish to try to make unequal things equal.

meritocracy as i know it is about people with the right skillset getting deserved commensuration. life is a game, and in this game, there are 3 factors- skill, strategy and chance. the right family background falls into chance. so does having the right mentors in life. the confluence of these factors then maketh a person who he is.

in a sense, meritocracy in a capitalist society means promoting and rewarding the party that so contributes the most. in a firm, if you do well, you get rewarded with bonuses and promotions, and if you do badly you get fired. it does not actually matter whether you didnt meet your kpi because you were on a bald patch of hard luck or you caught a flu or some std. of course bosses should be and can be benevolent, but after a number of months, they have to cut off a loss making tumor to prevent it from sapping off the others. in essence, it is about 'glow or go'. in more sophisticated parlance, 'shape up, or ship out'.

life's like that.

nobody would care that you made cold calls every night. nobody cares if you have 20 children, a sickly great great grandmother and Lucky, your pet dog, to feed. in fact it probably should not matter at all. just think about it, if it were your colleagues who have been such uncontributive members, would you not be pissed off that they are leeching off you?

ok back to the topic. the gifted test is about that child at p3 and his performance at that test at p3 and nothing else. it should not be important that his father is a corporal in the army or the ceo of a fortune 500 company. it is all about him and his pencil and eraser and the test booklet.

life has never provided all of humanity with a smooth playing field. and we have to accept it. if someone has the chance of a great family and you dont, be envious, but accept it and move on. i am quite satisfied that the playing field in singapore is generally already fairly equal. no one is prevented from taking the gep test unless he is late for the paper. more than 1/2 hr late, if i did not remember long. they dont have you declare your parent's income taxes before you can take the test. they dont have you declare if you own a dog. they only care about the quality of your answers to the test.

besides that, 2000 is a princely sum, but if we assume the median family income to be 5000, then it is affordable. it is all about prioritizing and wisdom in investing. if one so believes that that investment in the child is worth it, then one has to make sacrifices. with 2000 you can buy yourself 4 boxes of SK-II masks, or you can send your child for tuition. in both cases you take a chance, since your face might also be too shit for improvement in the first place. or you can buy yourself an osim massage chair or go on a tour to europe. and if you really think that your child is worth it, then hello, make some sacrifices?

i know of parents who insist of playing mahjong and inviting friends over even in a month to important examinations of their children. with the huge ruckus, i dont think it would be very conducive for the child to study, even if the child wants to study.

singapore is no sparta. we dont lump all the young men and women together in a gymnasium, strip them and whip them into shape all at the same time. i dont think parents would like that system that gives everyone virtually completely equal opportunities in life. this system is not perfect, but it is generally adequate. instead of thinking about how it is unfair, make some sacrifices for your child. and to think about it, if you cannot provide your child with that equal opportunity, is it because you have not worked hard or smart enough? blame it on chance if you have to, but nothing is going to change, so make the best out of it, i suppose.

and always remember mencius and his mother. if she can move 3 times just so that her son has a conducive environment, what is sacrificing some time doing the chores for one's child or not enjoying SK-II masks for a few months?