Has our government bet on the wrong horse?

This is going to be an uphill climb. 

Lawrence Wong (our Second Finance Minister) has thrown the gauntlet down during the 48th St Gallen Symposium in Switzerland. This time I hope the government and society will give him full support.

This is what he said: "The paper qualifications do not define who you are as a person. That is a mindset change that we are trying to effect in Singapore."

He was responding to this query from the audience: "Whether Singapore's education system gives opportunities to less qualified people."

Now, if that were the question asked specifically, then, in my view, Lawrence did not answer it specifically with that above statement.

But he nevertheless went on to clarify. 

It reports that he "noted that the focus on credentials is not an education problem per se, but a societal mindset."

Still that answer avoided the question, but not for long.

Lawrence gave a hint of a cautious "no, it does not" - that is, Singapore's education system does not give opportunities to less qualified people - when he added: -

"It is not unique to Singapore by any means, perhaps less so in Europe...but certainly when you look at Asian countries, there is that emphasis in credentialism as a signal for employers to decide who is a better candidate, as a signal to society to decide whether you can do well in life. So, we should move away from that."

If you are looking for the clincher of a reply, then yes, the last phase underscores it: -

"So, we should move away from that." 

Note the choice word "should" and not "must" or "shall". 

Of course, it would be more reassuring if it had been this: -

"We SHALL or MUST move away from that" instead of "we should move away from that."

Yet, admittedly, the consolatory "should" is as good as it gets with our ingrained and hallowed meritocratic system (as I'd said, it's an uphill climb, of a Sisyphus nature, because reality is so different from a glib Symposium pronouncement). 

And I think Lawrence should be applauded for taking that stand in front of a liberal and enlightened audience that I presume most are highly credentialed members? 

Also, note another choice word used, that is, "credentialism" instead of "meritocracy gone rogue or wrong". Too long or politically incorrect?

So, for his lexicon intelligence, Lawrence not only deserves an applause but also be credentialed for being diplomatic. 

Lesson? Just one. 

Sometimes, I think it is good to pretend that paper qualifications don't matter that much. 

Sometimes, I think it seems so right to tell others that "hey, chin up, diplomas and degrees don't define you, you are much more than that, much more," and then you turn to your own children and grill them on ten-year series and go cold turkey during the exams period as if their future depends on it. 

Honestly, which Singaporean parent can be faulted for such bipolar attitude concerning our fiercely meritocratic historical background that is based stridently on grades and its inequality. 

And with Lawrence's "moving away" speech, our Civil Service would have its work cut out for them. From their perspective, isn't it like expecting the "paper qualifications" hare to slow down and wait for the "skills and experience only" tortoise to catch up? Too unrealistic?

Alas, meritocracy, multiculturalism and economic development have been the bedrock principles of our nation-building since our Independence.

While you can't go wrong with multiculturalism, because you can't have "too much" of an effort to fostering harmony and unity in diversity, I can't say the same for meritocracy when it is left to its own devices.

If the avengers' Achilles' heel is Thanos, then meritocracy's vulnerability is guarded elitism, that is, elitists who exploit meritocracy to build up a gated society for themselves while paying lip-service to equality. That's also another word for the widening social and income inequality, and we are in the thick of it now. 

Is this then a case of unchecked sowing and reaping by our government over the decades? 

What's worse is the Molotov cocktail of mixing unbridled meritocracy with the traditional 5Cs (as pursued blindly by us). 

When you put meritocracy, elitism and materialism together, the mix is a potently toxic brew for a society, which is only recently making an earnest U-turn to correct a systemic problem with deep creepy roots. Imagine a rich farmer returning from a long self-indulgent holiday to a weed filled garden.

And on that inflammatory liquid concoction, this reminds me of the eminent barista emeritus SM Goh. 

At a National Day Rally in August 2003, PM Goh shared his heart's concern with the people: - 

"I am not too worried about our young people. There are many exciting opportunities for them in the new industries we are developing. They will eventually get their 5 Cs – cash, credit card, car, condominium and country club - except it will take a little longer.

I am more worried about older Singaporeans. In this slow economy, they may not get another job easily if they are retrenched."

I can hear the 5 cheers for the 5Cs, which represent cash (as in more money), credit card (as in instant gratification), car (as in higher cost of living, less exercise and health issues), condominium (as in the threat of a real estate bubble), and country club (as in prestige to deepen the social divide). 

At this point, a caveat is in order. 

Please note that there is nothing wrong with owning the 5Cs, my parenthesis above however forewarns about the unchecked governmental policies of unintended consequences, and not the censure of individual ownership (and I am sure it was an unintended, innocent remark from our beloved barista ESM Goh).

Now, back to my point... 

So, after decades since Independence (of unchecked meritocracy) and about ten years or more since ESM Goh's rally speech (about the 5Cs), our government in the words of Lawrence is wise-ing up. 

Recall that Lawrence said: "The paper qualifications do not define who you are as a person"? And the corollary of that is, neither should the 5Cs define us. That is an admirable U-turn.

So have no fear, Dr Amy Khor doing the U-turn is here. She is our Senior Minister of State for Health.

And at the graduation ceremony of Nanyang Polytechnic's School of Health Science this week, she offered her newly blend of 5Cs.

She said that "graduation is no longer the end of learning. A critical skill of survival is to be able to unlearn and to relearn. Learning involves challenging and abandoning outdated practices or thoughts that no longer serve in the interest of our patients."

Here's unveiling her 5Cs, ready? Drumroll please. 

They are "Competence, Creativity, Collaboration, Compassion and Commitment".

Unlike the 5Cs of cash, car, credit card, condominium and country club, which are essentially an end in themselves, Amy's 5Cs are a means to an end.

And that end, I choose to believe, is to become a better human being, one where our parents, our children and the society can truly be proud of, regardless of how much we own or possess. 

In my view, that is the only effective antidote to check unchecked meritocracy, which inevitably leads to elitism that threatens to divide the society.

While I don't deny that you will most likely end up possessing the 5Cs ESM Goh talked about with Amy's 5Cs, the point is however not about individual ownership (recall my caveat above?). 

In other words, my point is about policies that are blindsided by both unchecked meritocracy and economic developments that benchmark itself to the material (car, cash) rather than the immaterial (competence, compassion and commitment). 

Mind you, a society that sees the securing of car and cash, for example, as a hallmarked goals of success runs the risk of causing a misguided generation to be depressed for the want of them or even more depressed for not having enough of them (as compare to his or her next door neighbour). Alas, the human appetite is seldom sated. 

But a society where the government walks in step with the people by encouraging timeless virtues like competence, compassion and commitment towards that which makes us better human beings is a society that is instrumental in guiding and transforming meritocracy towards achieving a fairer, happier and more contented society. 

In my view, though not admitted, this is what our government is trying to make up for in the many decades of putting their bets on the wrong horse, that is, unchecked meritocracy, by not changing horses midstream.

Well, with such thing, you are never too late to make a definite and determined change as Amy and Lawrence (and LHL) are doing with words, and hopefully deeds too. 

Let me end with a scenario empowered by the gift of hindsight. 

Imagine this, what if PM Goh had offered a different speech than the one he gave about the 5Cs in 2003?

In other words, what if he had determinedly and sincerely promoted and encouraged Amy's 5Cs instead. What would that part of the speech of today be as he looks back?

Maybe, with some imagination, it would sound something like this: -

"I am not too worried about the younger and older Singaporeans. In this economy where we put compassion, commitment, collaboration and competence first in all that we do, they will get a job easily if they are ever retrenched. 

And because we have developed the right Cs, they are resilient and hopeful in a society that looks beyond grades to the development of every individual's potential to his/her fullest."

After that, he may just end with this caution:-

"I would however be more worried for our young people if they had pursued the wrong 5Cs as an end in itself. You see, there are many exciting opportunities for them in the new industries we are developing. No doubt, they will eventually get their 5 Cs – cash, credit card, car, condominium and country club - except it will take a little longer. 

But then, without developing their character, that is, without the compassion and commitment to be a better human being, the 5Cs would not guarantee a contented, happy and resilient life for them. 

In fact, they may just grow up lost and empty in a world driven by endless consumption. 

And as the elected custodian and facilitator of their dream, career and growth, the last thing we want to do is to lean the ladder of humanity against the wrong side of the wall."

Mm…an overwrought imagination? 

Nevertheless, may I propose that what I have written above, if given some thought, is not too far from the truth? Cheerz.