Being elite

The Youthink section in the Straits Times on 20th June presented an article on the theme of "being elite". This is a very hot topic now, and I want to blog about it not because I like fashionable things (e.g. I don't read certain high-profile blogs), but because having read the ST article once, twice, and thrice, I was left with a nagging feeling of uneasiness.....

The disturbing thing is not that what the contributors wrote was total rubbish. If that was the case, then it would have been easy for me to dismiss it completely. The problem is that what they wrote consisted of many familiar arguments on this issue, but with a few slightly inappropriate sentences inserted here and there....(by three of the five contributors). Here they are:

(1) "To the non-elites, accept yourself for who you are and don't wallow in self-pity. Rise above your personal limitations and prove those who look down on you wrong."

After I read this, I did not become unhappy with the writer mainly because I know that she meant well. And that's actually part of the problem! She actually meant well! Yet it came across badly in the end. The writer was arguing that we should "celebrate those who work hard too" and I certainly agree with this and with most of the things she said. But the way the section ended was not as graceful as it could have been, for three reasons:

Firstly, the term "non-elites" inherently defines the majority of the people against the minority (elite) group. Tell me, do you prefer to be known as a Singaporean, or a "non-Westerner"? Why should anyone define himself in relation to another group of people?

Secondly, the sentence "accept yourself for who you are, and don't wallow in self-pity" is patronising. Just as we should never walk up to a stranger and say, "Hey pal, don't be sad lah, accept yourself for who you are", we should also never declare that people are in fact wallowing in self-pity for certain assumed reasons.

Thirdly, the last sentence "Rise above your personal limitations and prove those who look down on you wrong" presupposes that (a) if one cannot be part of the elite, it must certainly be due to personal limitations rather than external, societal, or systemic factors, and (b) there are indeed some people out there looking down on non-elites. But if there are indeed many such people who are narrow-minded enough to do so, shouldn't the writer be urging these people to change their views instead, rather than telling the non-elites to fight for the self-respect that they deserve all along?

(2) "Going to a JC is regarded as the main route to university, and people who don't make the cut either go to a polytechnic or the ITE....I'm not trying to promote polytechnic studies....My point is that young people should not blindly follow the 'elite' route".

This section (written by a different contributor) also gave me the perplexing feeling that I can agree with the general thrust of his/her argument and yet find certain aspects of the article problematic. The striking thing is how the writer states the observations as though they are undisputable matters of fact without pointing out that those views are in fact wrong even though they are widespread (for example, wouldn't it be good if s/he indicated his/her normative stance by saying that "going to a JC is often wrongly regarded as the main route to university"). The part that says so unambiguously that "people who don't make the cut...go to polytechnics" is also problematic, for it simply reinforces the misleading beliefs held by some that (a) only people who cannot make it to JCs go to the polytechnics, (b) there is one and only one 'elite route' rather than multiple pathways, and (c) that people opting for the polytechnic route are in fact permanently cutting themselves off from the opportunity of being an elite. Are they?

(3) "I was part of the elite again".

The third article by another commentator is the most problematic of all. I believe that this writer is a nice, normal guy with good grades who just wants to get a scholarship to enter a good university. I think his two main arguments are firstly, that "you can be an elite in any field", and secondly, "there's nothing wrong with (the presence of) a governing elite" - both of which I do agree. But the style of the article can be improved.

Essentially the article follows a structure of (a) "at first I can't join the prestigious elite club so I was very upset" line of argument, (b) "later I could join the club and became delighted again", and (c) only "complainers" "curse" elitism (note the use of the unflattering term, "complainers", to refer to people who do not embrace elitism) (my own interpretation and paraphrasing for (a) to (c)).

There is no indication in the article of how (a) and (b) are in fact very wrong attitudes to hold, when the writer (being a scholar himself) could have taken this opportunity to criticize such attitudes - and he would then have gained my respect. The silence on this could leave readers (especially aspiring scholarship applicants reading the article) thinking that it is 'not wrong' for people to feel this way. But I argue that it is wrong for aspiring scholarship applicants to feel this way, because the scholarship system that I hold in high esteem is about public service and nothing else. One should never yearn to be part of something which draws its legitimacy from public ethos mainly, or even partly, because of practical reasons such as "prestige", or for fulfilling personal 'dreams of overseas study', just as one should never indicate to a potential father-in-law that he wants to marry the daughter by saying "I sincerely hope to be part of your upper-class family", or to a lady he loves by saying "I'll be very upset if you don't accept me, as you're widely regarded as the most desirable girl on campus." (Where is the pristine love, may I ask?)

The way his emotions swing like a pendulum from extreme sadness to a blissful state of happiness also disturbs me, and results in the writer coming across as being (a) overly concerned with status differentials or (b) slightly myopic for being unable to see how one can still serve society by studying in one of our three reputable local universities using his own finances. And he mentioned that the years coinciding with his National Service "was an awkward and uncomfortable time" for him, leaving me to wonder why he has to feel this way. The use of the word "club" should also be avoided, for "clubs" are exclusive groups in which "membership has its privileges"; I feel that any suggestions of exclusivity should be avoided. And lastly, I do not think that it is modest to declare publicly that one is 'part of the elite'. Respect needs to be earned slowly over time, not conferred overnight by virtue of membership; and modesty is a virtue, even among the elites.

These, then, are my reasons for feeling slightly disturbed after reading the ST article.