'Exam Meritocracy' versus 'Talent Meritocracy'

There have been talks recently about whether Singapore has placed too much emphasis on exam success. Our academic system tends to focus too much on exam results ahead of talent, so much so that Singapore is only able to produce exam-beaters, but not world-beaters.

I agree with this statement. Although there is an emphasis on creative thinking and alternative methods of concept learning these few years, students are still on the traditional exam system. This is the reason why Singapore students who top global science and maths ranking regularly do not become top-ranked adults in their chosen vocations.

The over-emphasis on grades is evident in schools, where many students choose to participate in CCAs that are less demanding, as they are afraid that the CCA practices will interfere with their studies. For many, grades are their top concern, as scoring As is the only way to get to get a scholarship.

For a student to be truly successful, scholarship bodies must redefine success by de-emphasising grades, and actively encourage scholarship holders to pursue their own personal interests. If they are forcing students to meet certain academic standards in a short period of time, it means little in terms of career success. Parents should not pressure their children into entering a prestigious school as having good academic abilities does not necessary mean that they have what it takes to be an all rounder.

As for students themselves, they must learn to better benefit from their education by learning to take 'risks' to really benefit from their education. For example, biomedical scholarship holders may sign up for political science etc and initiate changes to become more creative and resilient.

This way, students can get the most out of their education and educators can understand that there are other things that constitute ability, like leadership, entrepreneurship and sporting skills.

It has been said that taken as a whole, the problem with world population, usually manifested in the shortage of resources is not due to population growth as such but to the inequitable distribution of wealth and resources. What are your views?

The planet is becoming undersized with the population growing considerably. Not only in space-wise is the planet shrinking, pressure has also been surging in other aspects, especially on the environment. It is hence customary for one to take at face value that this forms the basis for the problem with world population, apparent as the lack of resources. However, many fail to recognize the other veiled yet critical links to this problem, which are that of the inequitable of wealth and resources along with a matrix of additional factors.

The major contributors to the booming population are more often than not the developing and poorer countries, where the people lack education and means for family planning. And, in spite of what you would think, these countries are by and large having abundant of rich resources on their land. As many can name it, a tangible example will be Africa. In these impoverished nations, parents pin their hopes on the children to look after them when they reach old age and to help with chores from very young. Thus, as indemnity to the high child-mortality rates, they tend to have many children. Yet, having bountiful resources does not see the people being fed well. Many are still starving in the face of such potential wealth they possess. Here, the mounting population does not meet with a shortage of resources, which one may habitually presuppose to be so.

In fact, it is of immense contradiction to say a growing population would cause the problem with world population because depleting birth rate is a prevalent phenomenon in developed countries like the United States, Japan, and even Singapore. The governments in these countries bend over backward to overturn this trend for fear that a continually ageing population will cause the economy to suffer in the near future. So, if a huge population really necessitates the shortage of resources, will these governments be ludicrous enough to encourage population growth just to put more strain on resources and to trigger more problems to follow? I doubt so. If truth were told, Singapore with her virtually zilch resource not only survives but also prospers while the resource-abundant yet debt-stricken Africa slowly wastes away.

Hence, population growth has essentially no direct effect on the problem with world population. Ultimately, it is the unequal distribution of wealth and resources that is setting off the problem. It all depends on how we tap, use and manage these resources. A vast population indubitably put a certain degree of strain on resources, but a small population can make the same impact, or even more. With better technology and greater expertise, these people from rich countries with small population can exploit the resources at an all the more alarming rate in the desire for a higher quality of life. As a matter of fact, what we have now will only beget us to want more.

Therefore, population growth does not unequivocally amount to the shortage of resources. There live much more intricacies like the distribution of these resources and wealth, as well as the attitude of the people who manage and use them, all of which play a greater role in attributing to the problem with world population, rather than the mere strain on resources from people.