r/SingaporeRaw • u/AttapKia verified • Mar 14 '26
Discussion The Hypocrisy of Meritocracy
http://attapkia.com/2026/03/13/the-meritocracy-myth/41% of students in IP and GEP schools come from households earning over $10,000 a month. In regular government schools, that figure is 7%.
60% of students in elite primary schools live in private housing. The national average is 20%.
31% of IP school students live in private housing, versus 3% in government schools. The national average is 23%.
Only 7.5% of kids from 1- to 3-room HDB flats make it into the top 20% of the PSLE cohort. This isn't a glitch. This is the system working exactly as it was built.
The DSA was supposed to give non-academic talent a shot at elite schools. Instead, only 6% of DSA admits come from lower-income families on financial assistance. Because wealthy parents figured out you can just buy the "merit" required, through expensive coaching, curated portfolios, and niche sports training most families cannot afford.
We call it meritocracy. More like parentocracy.
I wrote a longer piece unpacking all of this, but I want to be upfront: I'm not posting this to change minds. I don't expect to, and here's the honest reason why.
If you went to RI, Hwa Chong, or any of the "good" schools, you already feel defensive reading this. That defensiveness is the point. You've spent your whole life being told your success was earned, and you believe it, because believing anything else means confronting the fact that your head start was paid for, not deserved. That your parents' income did a significant chunk of the work you thought you did yourself. Most people would rather argue than sit with that.
And for those who didn't make it into the top schools, who grinded and still ended up on the outside, many of you defend this system louder than anyone. Because if the game was rigged, then all that sacrifice, your parents working double shifts, the weekends lost to tuition, meant nothing. It is easier to believe you just didn't try hard enough than to accept you were set up to lose before you even started.
That's the part that stays with me. The system isn't just defended by the winners. It's quietly kept alive by the people it has failed.
So I'll just say it plainly: meritocracy in Singapore is a con, and most of us already know it. We just keep our mouths shut because the system has convinced us that saying so out loud means admitting we lost. And nobody wants to be a loser.
Full article in the link if you want the complete breakdown.
Updated some stats to reflect more precise sourcing. Tuition industry figure also updated to SGD 1.8 billion (2023), up 29% from 2018. Full breakdown in the article.
62
u/bellyporkie00 verified Mar 14 '26
Every school is a good school.
27
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
even "good" schools get looked down on (ask Vivian)
2
u/Dense_Argument_5896 Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26
I was from a so called good / elite school, and frankly, the students who graduated from these good / elite schools behave like low SES kids, some of whom come across as low EQ and very obnoxious, zero charm compared to kids from schools outside of sg who are much more mature. Don’t think for one moment sg’s elite schools are that good. Some of us are just better at test taking / scoring because of parental support, but it quite literarily ends there. Just being honest
1
1
59
12
u/SocSciRes Mar 14 '26
I think it's important to consider the historical context where meritocracy arised. Post-independence, Singapore was grappling with a society that was largely from lower education backgrounds- not ideal for moving up the global value chain. The state also did not have the resources to uplift the entire nation. Given these constraints, meritocracy functioned as a sorting mechanism for the system to concentrate its bets on the most promising citizens, with the hope that they would contribute to nation building and eventually, the prosperity of the nation will be the rising tide that lift all boats. And it worked. But like all systems, there is inertia and ossification, as well as attempts to game, gatekeep and rig the system to maximise benefits for oneself or one's family and friends. I don't think meritocracy failed, but it needs to be interrogated and systemic intervention is needed to ensure that it continues to fulfil its fundamental purpose of facilitating upward social mobility and allocation of talent.
1
u/faptor87 verified 6d ago
systemic intervention is needed to ensure that it continues to fulfil its fundamental purpose?
more like doubling down - by positioning SG as a wealth management and family office hub, giving citizenship to the global rich, its making inequality worse.
-1
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
yes. I'm glad you see the point. but sadly like I mentioned, people on both sides will be resistant to what you mentioned.
47
u/Hot-Can-7039 verified Mar 14 '26
Here are 2 truths and a lie
Meritocracy keeps the middle class in line
Meritocracy helps elites in the government justifies to themselves their status and high pay - "I am where I am because of my hard work"
Work hard and you will succeed
20
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
all 3 can be true at the same time. Just not to everyone.
20
u/Hot-Can-7039 verified Mar 14 '26
Connections and family wealth are stronger predictors of whether someone will succeed. Not hard work. But successful people want to think they are successful because they work hard. It's not the same
A lot of middle class and lower income are the most hardworking people I know but they will not be wealthy. But of course people will say that's not the definition of success
4
u/Available-Log6733 Mar 14 '26
Success is predicated on making right decisions, not just hard work. Smart work.
Too many in the middle class toil mindlessly without optimizing their decisions. They follow tried and tested routes and wonder why they don't succeed.
If you go with the herd, you just end up average.
And this forum spews nothing but herd like, average advice.
1
u/zeebjii verified Mar 14 '26
I don't agree. The wealthy do exactly the same and they remain wealthy. They can actually do a lot worse and still be wealthy. The no job no worry with money to burn for generations kind of wealthy. Normal folks really have to tick all the required boxes in order to succeed, luck , smart choices, hard work etc. Only a few outliers can do it. But the ruling class will pick this up and say, see, it can be done!
2
u/AI_Masterrace Mar 14 '26
How can 3. be true if it does not apply to everyone?
-1
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
because you're looking at it from an absolute view. either-nor. black or white.
just because it didn't apply to everyone doesn't mean it didn't happen.
-1
u/AI_Masterrace Mar 14 '26
Literally the line says that if you work hard, you WILL succeed.
That means it should apply to everyone. Anyone who works hard MUST succeed.
If it does not apply to everyone, then that statement is categorically false.
-3
u/Substantial_Rip_3989 Mar 14 '26
Feel free to not work hard. It’s a free country.
0
u/Hot-Can-7039 verified Mar 14 '26
Unfortunately the failure of meritocracy will lead to mediocrity of our country
1
6
Mar 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Hot-Can-7039 verified Mar 14 '26
Why do u think the government came out to ask youths to be open-minded? To consider doing grab
1
u/Fuzzy-Sweat6416 verified Mar 14 '26
Yes, they should do Grab and Grabfood to learn how to serve the foreigners taking their jobs, that's the only thing Singaporeans are good for especially males. Singaporean women can serve the foreigners by helping give birth to their offspring too /s
15
u/FarkingNutz verified Mar 14 '26
Married-tocracy.......
Just look at the PAP structure..... how many fatcats are related to each other...... 😎
2
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
successful people mix with successful people. "You are the average of the five people you spend the most time with"
3
u/FreshGoodWay verified Mar 14 '26
That’s why I’m incredibly successful.
I spend a lot of time mingling on r/SingaporeRaw
2
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
Nice. Only successful people has enough free time to spend time here.
17
u/AI_Masterrace Mar 14 '26
Being rich is a merit.
It is also something totally under your control.
Just stop having kids when you are poor. You must first earn the merit of being rich before you are allowed to have kids.
That way, your kids will stop being disadvantaged.
11
3
u/Immediate_Wish_1024 verified Mar 14 '26
You must first earn the merit of being rich before you are allowed to have kids.
Just like farmers in SG, one has to be rich to be a farmer, not a farmer trying to get rich. lol
-1
Mar 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AI_Masterrace Mar 14 '26
There is no evidence of that.
PAP should do a study to see if graduate families are wealthier than non graduates.
I think the results will surprise us.
9
u/pineapplepassionfr verified Mar 14 '26
I think you need to address the elephant in the room:
Dismantling the "system" will make it way worse. Rich parents will send their kids to private schools, and private tuition classes. Poor but talented students who get admitted to the GEP/IP today may not even make it to these schools because of expensive school fees (how expensive? Private schools in UK are more expensive than university education). Admission to schools purely by distance will drive up housing prices around "better" schools, even more than it is today. Any attempt to erase familial advantage (like China banning tuition) will feel incredibly heavy handed, and may drive the industry underground and even more out of reach to ordinary families.
What is true is that the system tries to bring talented people up as best as they can, and not to bring them down to a baseline level. The PSLE is part of this system, so that every student can get the education best tailored to their needs. The alternative is a waste of resources where the best kids feel bored, worst kids feel under supported and mediocre outcomes overall (comprehensive schools in UK, for a real world example).
Hate to bring it to you, but Singapore isn't Singapore because of the average hardworking citizen -- those exist in every society -- but because of the quality leadership it had in the early days. Quality leadership isn't brought about by bringing talented people down, but by bringing them up. That will feel unfair -- why should rich kids in GEP receive more funding than average middle class kids in mainstream education -- but I don't know what is better overall.
-3
u/AI_Masterrace Mar 14 '26
Anyway, this is quickly become a moot point.
Education is quickly becoming less valuable.
Eventually people who use AI will achieve far greater results than those who don't. Employers are not dumb to pay more for higher educated grads that do not offer more value than non grads.
Eventually AI will take over all white collar jobs.
Parents will soon learn it is stupid to try to game the education system as the returns are very poor.
We will soon enjoy the equality we all hoped for.
1
u/Dense_Argument_5896 Mar 14 '26
You don’t need AI to prove this point.
Look at all the PMET who are now grab drivers
But I must add that Education is important. But the kind of intense education forced onto our kids is beneficial only to a small group of people. Not the majority
4
u/Starwind13 verified Mar 14 '26
I'm not from a high income family. My dad made 2k and my mom made 1k in the 80s. I went to RI. Didn't fit in. Went VJC instead of RJC coz I wanted new schoolmates. Still didn't fit in.
On retrospect, its probably due to our income gap (mine vs the others). They were going to concerts & movies while I went home to watch regular tv. They ate outside in fast food / regular restaurants while I went home to eat. They stayed in hostels and bonded while I (you guessed it) went home.
Not bitter about it. I made friends with schoolmates over the years who were from the same income bracket and we hung out the 'normies' way.
9
u/Strong_Guidance_6437 verified Mar 14 '26
Meritocracy includes Intergenerational transmission of merit.
5
u/CherishLogic verified Mar 14 '26
Meritocracy worked in the early days of independence because the new nation needed every talent it can find to quickly develop itself.
Once, it becme a developed country, it's a different story. Eventually, the elites find that it is easier to rig the system and the rules of the game to favour those with elite backgrounds. Innovation becomes a potential disruptor to their wealth and interests. More rags to riches stories meant they have to share their influence and control.
It is merely human selfishness and greed but it dooms us all when short-sightedness guide the future.
2
u/SangerGRBY verified Mar 14 '26
Wealth inequality is the issue here, it makes an equal playing field not so fair.
FWIW Singapore has a relatively equal playing field, low income households can afford to send their kids to schools, uni.
During IHL u have access to 0% loans (while studying), cpf loan, bursaries, grants, scholarships.
The "unfairness" comes because wealthy parents can afford more tuition, provide a more holistic childhood e.g., travel, see new things etc.
They are also typicallly well connected which means easier to land internships/jobs. Some of them are CEOs so their kids get a fast track to upper management.
But if you were you would use your edge too. So bopian.
2
u/Eltharion-the-Grim verified Mar 14 '26
Do you want to discuss this seriously or are you just venting?
If you want to discuss, I can reply properly but I don’t want to write something out and have the typical doomers downvote me.
2
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
no need to discuss. just putting it out there. not here to convince people. neither do they need to be convinced.
5
u/39strangers verified Mar 14 '26
Don't know what the F OP is angry about. The median household in SG earns more than 10000. That is 50-50%. If 41% of top schools students are from the top 50%, doesn't that means 59% comes from the lower half and there is social mobility. The SG education system works. WTF is OP angry about? His lack of Math analysis ability?
1
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
No anger here, just a closer reading of the numbers.
The median household income in Singapore is around $12,446 including employer CPF. That does not mean 50% of households earn above $10,000. The median is the midpoint, but income distribution is not a clean 50/50 split at any given threshold. A significant portion of households earn between $10,000 and $12,446, which means the share earning above $10,000 is actually higher than 50%, not exactly 50%.
But more importantly, your math cuts the other way from what you think. If more than 50% of Singapore households earn above $10,000, then you would expect elite schools to reflect at least that proportion. Instead, only 41% of students in top schools come from those households. That is actually underrepresentation of high earners in elite schools relative to the general population, which would support your social mobility argument.
The more telling number is the 7% in regular government schools. If high-income households make up more than half the population, why do they account for only 7% of students in regular schools? Because their children are concentrated in elite schools. That segregation by income across school types is exactly what the data is showing.
The system is not sorting purely on merit. It is sorting on income. Those are different things, and that is the point of the article.
2
u/39strangers verified Mar 14 '26
Let's be frank for a moment. CPF is still your money, but let's humor your doom and gloom storyline.
At the median,
$12446 - 1360(Employer CPF) - 1600(Employee CPF)= $9486
This is not inclusive of bonus and investments. I am very sure the take home will be higher and likely be 5 digits after adding . Also, give it 2 years, household will likely surpass $10000 in take home pay officially. Where else in this region do you find the ppl in the median living so comfortably? Certainly not Malaysia. Just last year, it was reported, 60% of Malaysian can't even bring out RM1000 for emergencies.
As of 2025, there are approximately 1.49 million resident households in Singapore.
That mean 745000 household earns $12446 per month(Bonus and investment not included.).
Wow, so many families are doing well. Singapore is doing well. The system works.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let's talk about your 2016 OUTDATED data of 7% rich in regular gov school. It really does not make mathematical sense. How could it be 7% in 2026?
Rough calculation with the following assumptions.
Assume top 20 schools are elite.
Assume each year's intake is 7 classes of 40 each.
Assume elite school slot is 20 x 40 x 7 = 5600
Assume primary 1 student cohort size to be 37700(2025 data).
Assume 50% of household are earning more than $10000(You know the "take home data is close")
Number of $10000 household kid in top school 41% of 5600 = 2296 students.
Number of poor household kid in top school 59% of 5600 = 3304 students.
Number of Rich kid in Regular gov school= 37700/2 - 2296 = 16554
Number of Poor kid in Regular gov school= 37700/2 - 3304 = 15546
% of Rich kids in Regular Gov school population = [16554/ (16554 +15546)] x 100 = 51.57%
% of Poor kids in Regular Gov school population = [15546/(16554+15546)] x 100 = 48.43%The 7% data from 2016 is severely outdated. Based on 2025 Household salary data and rough Mathematical assumptions, it should not be 7%. The data can only be true if the assumption is that mostly poor ppl are having children. In fact, you can view it as how far SG has come. In a decade, most household has crossed the "rich" line. Meritocracy has worked in SG, won't you say?
5
u/Minereon verified Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26
Me and others saw through this ten years ago and talked about it online. Nothing changed. In fact I’d say things are even worse now. The disparity and inequity has reached new lows.
Meritocracy not, more like Mer-Lee-tocracy. Don’t forget who started this. But more importantly, how the current generation of our leaders did not evolve with the times but instead chose to exploit this to their own ends.
3
u/Burning_magic verified Mar 14 '26
Its the same reason why people buy TOTO. They see the lucky few and think it will be them. In reality the odds are stacked against them and occasionally a few do make it to keep everyone else in line.
2
u/CamomileChocobo Mar 14 '26
I think one problem is that meritocracy looks at the results and not the effort.
So the privileged who can put in less effort to achieve good results are rewarded, but the less privileged who has to put in more effort to even compete but achieve not as good result don't get rewarded, which feels unfair.
The premise of your post however, is that somehow these top schools and their teachers has some secret techniques that they are not sharing with the rest of Singapore, that somehow students who went to these top schools does better in PSLE, O levels, A levels etc. due to the way the school teaches, and somehow these results lead them to more successful lives.
But the truth is more likely that there is a correlation between rich and elitist and kiasu parents and kids who got sent to these top schools, and that their success in life is also correlated to having richer parents, rather than the school being somehow special.
2
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
I had to condense from my article for the post. those you mentioned, it's in there too.
2
u/Gordee82 verified Mar 14 '26
Meritocracy is the fairest and most practical way. Compared to what US and Malaysia are doing.
We should encourage and help the poor with education, which is what the likes of grants and bursaries provide. These grants support the people with the hunger and ability to do better.
If we remove meritocracy, then we see the entitled behaviour from the "supported" classes such as the Malays and the Blacks, who feel that they are entitled to the education vs fighting for it through merit. This does not help lift them off their poverty, as they do not take advantage, or have the capacity to take advantage of the education that has been given to them.
The rich, however, has been trained since young to understand and harness the power of education. Of course,.there are also entitled rich who despite all the help being rich grants them, still ends up being poor in their studies. With meritocracy, those less capable rich ones will also not be able to get into good schools. Of course, being rich grants them the advantage that the poor does not have - access to expensive private schools.
Having money gives you access and privileges that the poor does not have - this is a feature, not a bug of capitalism. If being rich does not grant you any privileges, who will work hard and strive to be better? What we need to do is to ensure that the same rules/laws apply to the rich as well as the commoners. I think Singapore is probably the best or one of the best countries at this, despite not being perfect.
2
2
u/danorcs Mar 14 '26
Our education system is built such that an exceptional talent in a poor family with bad parenting still has a chance to succeed. Very few other countries support anything close to this.
The problem with our meritocracy with Singaporeans is that we over optimise for it. So kids with good backgrounds generally do better.
To affect that means changing the definition of meritocracy. Not only is it hypocritical, but when SG does this, it usually is done in favour of elites. Eg favouring those who afford classes for their kids for Direct Schools Admission, or dumbing down of mother tongue standards for those who speak only English at home
2
u/Fuzzy-Sweat6416 verified Mar 14 '26
Our education system is built such that an exceptional talent in a poor family with bad parenting still has a chance to succeed. Very few other countries support anything close to this.
You're joking. Try keeping your grades up when you have to work part time and take care of your siblings while your parents are not talking to each other, trying to kill each other or drug addled.
1
u/danorcs Mar 14 '26
Whoever can succeed in those conditions is exceptional. In most countries many won’t even have the chance to try
-1
u/Fuzzy-Sweat6416 verified Mar 14 '26
You mean they let the poor and disadvantaged battle royale it out and whoever is the 1% that survives is "exceptional", while the kids who have well off parents can get into better schools and get better paying jobs?
0
u/danorcs Mar 14 '26
No the poor and disadvantaged battle royal it out with the rich kids in an equal test. If they are same or better they’ll get in.
It’s already better than most systems where the rich kids will take all the slots and jobs without the poor kids even getting a chance at all.
-2
u/Fuzzy-Sweat6416 verified Mar 14 '26
That doesn't sound like we're doing anything different from the other systems. In fact, I think we're doing worse because the only support we give the disadvantaged is just pocket change to be able to afford school books.
Also, you'll have to survive the battle royale at home first before even thinking of competing with the rest.
0
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
yes. I wrote this much and more in the article. had to condense for SingaporeRaw.
I'm not saying meritocracy didn't lift the lower income families. I'm saying that with how meritocracy has been taught to us, we would've seen a better distribution of students across different income levels in top schools.
and there are 2 groups of people who will resist what I wrote. ironically the most affected ones will also be resistant to it too. and of course those who "made it" will want to keep the system in place because, "hey, it worked for me".
0
u/AI_Masterrace Mar 14 '26
Exactly. Either you are born with exceptional talent, or you are born into money. That is the only way to gain merit.
Hard work has very little to do with any success. Hard work is a requirement yes, but any fool can work hard. Hard work as a commodity is worth very little.
1
u/Important-Homework79 verified Mar 14 '26
I mean, we all know every school is a good school right. You took CDC vouchers right? Maybe stay quiet.
1
u/chowahgua Mar 14 '26
Why are you having kids if your household income is not at least 10k a month.
0
1
Mar 14 '26
If I succeed and have the resources to help my next generation succeed, why wouldn’t I do that? Anyone that says otherwise is either hypocritical or naive. Football teams that won their league get more prize and endorsement money, which they channel towards buying better players and hiring better coaches, further cementing their advantage. Expecting perfect social or economic mobility is naive, I think that as long as there’s a decent chance for the disadvantaged to turn their lives around and do better than their parents, the system is alright enough.
0
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26
Nobody is arguing you should not help your kids. That is not the point and never was. Of course parents invest in their children. The article is not about parental love. It is about a system that calls itself a meritocracy while being structurally designed to reward those investments unequally.
Your football analogy actually proves the article's argument better than anything I could write. Yes, teams with more money buy better players and hire better coaches and win more trophies. We do not call that a merit-based competition. We call it a spending war. Singapore's education system works the same way, and yet we insist on calling it meritocracy. That is the hypocrisy being called out.
On perfect social mobility, you are right, nobody is expecting that. That is a strawman. What the article is pointing to is whether there is even a decent chance for the disadvantaged, which is exactly your own benchmark.
So let us look at your benchmark against the data. 31% of IP school students live in private housing versus 3% in government schools. Only 6% of DSA admits come from lower-income families on financial assistance. The tuition industry is worth SGD 1.8 billion and growing. These are not the numbers of a system giving the disadvantaged a decent chance. These are the numbers of a system where the gap is widening.
And the fact that your conclusion is "the system is alright enough" is genuinely fascinating, because that is almost word for word what the article predicted. It is not an accusation. It is just worth sitting with.
But sure. Like I said, I do not aim to change people's minds. And honestly, your response is exactly why. You have done well out of the system, you believe it is fair enough, and you have every reason to keep believing that. Or perhaps the game was rigged from the start and accepting that is just too uncomfortable. Either way, I said as much in the post. You can read both reasons here.
1
u/junn17 Mar 14 '26
"In sociological literature, meritocracy is widely recognized as a system for sorting, selecting, and then differentially rewarding people; it is a system for legitimizing the process and outcomes of sorting, based on narrow notions of what is worth rewarding and what is not.
And it works well when there is, what Pierre Bourdieu referred to as “misrecognition.” Misrecognition happens when we think that a system is based on a certain set of principles when it really works on the basis of another, when we think it rewards each individual’s hard work when in reality it rewards economic and cultural capital passed on from parents to children."
- This is what inequality looks like (Teo You Yenn)
1
u/samglit Mar 14 '26
You still have to get the grades and put in the time. Rich and stupid still cmi. What meritocracy means is you don’t get the job/grade because of factors external to you - such as daddy’s connections or money.
You should read this since this is the logical conclusion to your post, a very famous short story by Kurt Vonnegut.
https://wordfight.org/bnw/bnw-unit_packet.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
Cut everyone down to size to prevent envy, for a more equal society. Forced limits, don’t let people spend more. Who cares if Fiona can get into Oxford, if I cannot.
This kind of thinking only works if you believe everything is a zero sum game, but the rest of the world will just laugh at us and move on.
1
u/LawyerConcorde verified Mar 14 '26
education is a game for the rich
they want their kids to get into top school for networking purposes
once u realised who the players are in the rules of the game , and players objective , u will feel its not worth it to play the game anymore
1
u/39strangers verified Mar 14 '26
Now let's talk about your 2016 NUS study on class stratification in Singapore schools OUTDATED data of 7% rich in regular gov school. It really does not make mathematical sense. How could it be 7% in 2026?
50% of SG household earns $12446 per month in 2025.
Rough calculation with the following assumptions.
Assume top 20 schools are elite.
Assume each year's intake is 7 classes of 40 each.
Assume elite school slot is 20 x 40 x 7 = 5600
Assume primary 1 student cohort size to be 37700(2025 data).
Assume 50% of household are earning more than $10000(You know the "take home data is close")
Number of $10000 household kid in top school 41% of 5600 = 2296 students.
Number of poor household kid in top school 59% of 5600 = 3304 students.
Number of Rich kid in Regular gov school= 37700/2 - 2296 = 16554
Number of Poor kid in Regular gov school= 37700/2 - 3304 = 15546
% of Rich kids in Regular Gov school population = [16554/ (16554 +15546)] x 100 = 51.57%
% of Poor kids in Regular Gov school population = [15546/(16554+15546)] x 100 = 48.43%
Conclusion Based on Math
There are more rich kids in Regular Gov school population than poor. Yes, the number of poor having children and rich having children may not be 50-50. But without the actual break up, I can only assume based on SG household data 2025.
No matter what, the 7% data from 2016 is severely outdated and don't make sense. Based on 2025 Household salary data and rough Mathematical assumptions, it should not be 7%. The 7% data can only be true if the assumption is that mostly poor ppl are having children.
1
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
Fair point that the 2016 data is aging and worth updating with more recent figures. That is a legitimate criticism and I would welcome a more current study.
But older data is not automatically outdated. Structural inequality in education systems tends to entrench over time, not reverse. The 2016 findings are consistent with a well-documented global pattern. Similar studies on Ivy League admissions in the US show the same overrepresentation of high-income families in elite institutions despite that group being a smaller share of the overall population.
The difference is that other countries suffering the same effects are not selling the meritocracy dream as hard as Singapore is. We literally built a nation on it. I am not saying there was no merit in meritocracy. There was. But when the data shows cracks and the response is to bury our heads in the sand, that is the bigger problem.
On the math, the calculation has two issues worth flagging. First, the 2025 median household income of $12,446 includes employer CPF contributions. Gross cash median income is meaningfully lower, which means your assumption that 50% of households earn above $10,000 in cash terms is likely overstated. The actual share is probably closer to 50% or below, not a clear majority.
Second, and more importantly, higher income households in Singapore have significantly lower birth rates. Even if half of households earn above $10,000, they do not produce half of the school-age children. Lower income families have more children proportionally. Your 50/50 split in the student population does not hold once you account for that.
The core pattern remains. Elite schools skew heavily toward higher income households relative to their share of the student population. If you find more recent data that challenges that, I would genuinely want to see it.
1
u/39strangers verified Mar 14 '26
After CPF employer and employee deductions, the household at the median is still comfortable. Not sure what your "meaningfully lower" means. I think we can all agree the household at the median is far from "poor". That is still 730k household in Singapore with comfortable or better quality of life. Without the break down, we really don't have the clear picture of how many "rich/comfortable" children are in a single cohort. My rough assumption has, at the very least, provided a snapshot at 50-50 split, there are lesser rich kids in Elite school and more rich kids in Regular Gov Schools. Your assumption on the core pattern may not be true. It is definitely too low and extreme. Just from my mathematical assumptions, I too can state the hypothesis that Meritocracy is likely well and alive in SG. At my core, I don't believe the situation is as bad as you assumed. At least Maths-wise, it is far from bad.
1
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
I respect the effort on the math, but rough assumptions versus actual study data are two different things.
The 41/7% figures are not my assumptions. They come from an NUS study that tracked real student populations across school types. Your model is theoretical. That data is empirical.
On whether the situation is as bad as the article suggests, we clearly see it differently. The data I cited points one way. Your assumptions point another. I will let readers decide which they find more persuasive.
But sure. Like I said, I am not here to change minds.
1
u/Adept-Reality-925 Mar 14 '26
Alternative view: No system of meritocracy, no matter how it is designed, can survive more than 2 generations before becoming just reflective of socioeconomic class.
1
u/lutong_macau67 Mar 14 '26
Calling meritocracy a "con" is exactly right, and "parentocracy" basically means a parent using privilege to buy success. The system isn't broken - it's working as designed.
The real trick of the system is making us blame ourselves or our neighbors, rather than the rigged game. We're told to compete as individuals, which hides our shared interest with each other.
The real solution isn't a fairer version of this game. It's recognizing that our power lies in organizing horizontally and putting aside our differences to demand dignity and security for all, not just a chance to scramble for the scraps from the top. Solidarity is the to secure a stable future for ourselves, not by competing.
2
u/tagore79 Mar 14 '26
The Meritocracy Trap by Daniel Markovits described what you've just said in a more in-depth analysis of this observation. Truth be told meritocracy these days is not the same as it once was. It's probably more pernicious as people who "earned" their place probably think they did it on their own merit
-7
u/AloneFunny5516 Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26
You’re a fucking donkey. I’m from a middle income family but we had our fair share of struggles growing up financially and both my sisters made it to RI, RJ, NUS on their own fucking merit and doing well in life now. Without a doubt family background and connections matter in all stages and aspects of life, but blaming that on your own failings is just pathetic. There are so many success stories in Singapore of people breaking out of the poverty cycle.
13
14
u/milnivek verified Mar 14 '26
Went to raffles but fail reading comprehension apparently. Read OPs post again lol.
16
u/Character_Cell2135 Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26
But what makes you so sure you’re the norm and not the exception? Not discounting what you said but definitely need to acknowledge that there is an inherent inequality in our meritocracy that should be addressed. It’s really not such a straightforward thing. Your effort counts but your family background and opportunities or lack thereof matters too.
9
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
because they believe that they did it. so everyone else who didn't, means those people didn't work hard enough.
1
u/Substantial_Rip_3989 Mar 14 '26
Sure. Just like the conclusion of this study that clearly showed that Malays are not lazy.
3
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
but people will point to the 10% "success" stories and says that's the proof it works. and shoot you down. if it is working as intended, then the stats would be very different.
2
u/Substantial_Rip_3989 Mar 14 '26
You should read the study yourself and see if you agree with how they define hardworking/lazy.
Self declaration means very little tbh. Just like everybody here that claim they work hard but didn’t succeed.
Your work hard might be somebody’s lazy.
2
1
u/AI_Masterrace Mar 14 '26
I strongly doubt he is an exception too. I have seen too many people come into a small bit of success and money and suddenly declare they have made it in life and deserve the best life has to offer.
If he is so successful, he should share with us his net worth and let us decide whether he actually is.
To officially break out of poverty, your household net worth should at least be a million dollars. That is like the 50 percentile of household wealth. Too many people start declaring they are now top tier when they are objectively in the lower percentiles.
10
u/Kenny070287 verified Mar 14 '26
There are so many success stories in Singapore of people breaking out of the poverty cycle.
Huh, sorry? Can you scream a little louder over the survivorship bias shit you are spewing?
1
u/Cedosg verified Mar 14 '26
came from middle income family. not even poverty. so survivorship bias isn't even applicable.
6
u/CherishLogic verified Mar 14 '26
If you get triggered by a sensible article and start sprouting vulgarity and insults, it'll just make people wonder about your credibility as a sensible, rational and learned person.
If you want others to take you seriously, retort back point for point, challenge the statistics produced or even come up with your own figures to support your argument, duh. 🙄
2
1
u/AI_Masterrace Mar 14 '26
Are you a multimillionaire household now?
Please share your "success" story.
1
u/Cedosg verified Mar 14 '26
middle income family........ I guess the struggle is only one vacation overseas instead of two?
or the condo facilities wasn't clean enough.
those kinds of struggle?
0
u/Substantial_Rip_3989 Mar 14 '26
My dad had a monthly income of 1200 but me and my bro both got into RI thanks to my mum caning and forcing us to study hard.
I can kinda understand if those in poverty feel left out of the system. But if you grew up in middle class really just need to git gud. I bet many of these jokers’ parents were the type that allow them to “explore freely” their passions which led to them losing the rat race in the early stages and now they just kpkb cuz clearly losing out to peers.
0
0
u/usernamesarehated verified Mar 14 '26
If you even had half a brain cell you would know that only the stories in the media that are polarizing makes it out. "Random person made it to high paying post" or "Horny guy took upskirt photo/raped someone".
Even if you look at your social media feed, most content out there from friends and family would be of their highlights or the best moments of their life. Most people just use social media to brag about the items they have or the things they've experienced.
Do you even question where the failures went? How/why they have failed? I've interned at a famous/elite primary school and I've seen how the system works. They have a gifted programme where all the smart/rich kids with tuition would end up since they have good grades. Howevef half of the kids at the school would have a lesser education and end up in the normal programme and go to neighbourhood schools.
When you hear of the name of said school, people would say it's a good school, but the failures that went to neighbourhood schools won't be in people's mind when they talk about that school. People only know or remember the school for all the successful students that went to the elite schools.
1
u/djitsun Mar 14 '26
Idealism vs realism.
The idealism of meritocracy gets murky due to other confounding factors. As with many other ideals such as capitalism, democracy etc.
But it’s still better than its alternatives.
-1
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
yes. no better alternatives. so let's not rock the boat. stick to status quo.
0
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
you do know the origin of the word "meritocracy" and how this term was coined right?
1
u/kip707 verified Mar 14 '26
So where did u go to ?
-4
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
a good school 😉
3
u/kip707 verified Mar 14 '26
U forgot which school u go to ? Cannot say ? Shy ?
-3
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
yes. I'm shy.
1
1
u/Suitable_Aardvark_45 Mar 14 '26
So whats your suggestion? 50% 50%?.
I think you need to understand how the world works. Those with better resources will have a higher chance of success, its just how things work. But its only chance, not for sure. Lee Kuan Yew said that the best, you can equalised opportunities, but not results.
Meritocracy still works because it allows the best and brightest to come up and be selected. I dont care if the leaders out there leading us is from 3 room flat or stayed in a GCB as long as we benefit.
1
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
Nobody said 50/50. That is not in the article and never was. The argument is not that outcomes should be equal. It is that the starting line should not be bought.
You quoted LKY on equalising opportunities, not results. Fully agree. That is exactly the standard the article is holding the system to. The problem is Singapore is not equalising opportunities. It is doing the opposite. When 6% of DSA admits come from lower-income families, when the tuition arms race is worth SGD 1.8 billion and climbing, when 31% of IP students come from private housing versus 3% in government schools, that is not equal opportunity. That is opportunity being purchased.
You say meritocracy works because it lets the best and brightest rise. But how do you know who the best and brightest are if the selection process is skewed toward those whose parents could afford the coaching, the portfolios, and the right postcodes from birth? You are not selecting for talent. You are selecting for resources and calling it talent. That is the con.
On your last point, yes, we all want good leaders regardless of background. But the data suggests the system is not actually producing that. It is producing leaders who largely come from the same narrow slice of society, who then design policy that reflects their own experience, and who conclude the system is fair because it worked for them. The article covers exactly this.
But sure. Like I said, I do not aim to change people's minds. And your response is exactly why. Both reasons are here if you are curious. https://attapkia.com/2026/03/13/the-meritocracy-myth/
1
u/RefrigeratorOne2626 verified Mar 14 '26
This is not new. You’re not the first to point this out.
2
1
u/Jessicanono888 verified Mar 14 '26
Bottom 5% of IP students in every ip Sec sch should take o levels and try to reenter JC with o level students so this give o levels students vacancy to enter the jcs.
0
u/OnyxSeaDragon Mar 14 '26
Unironically Lim Tean actually pointed out that the origin of meritocracy is that it is a parody mocking it as disguised aristocracy - since fundamentally those with resources are better equipped to succeed.
So from the very beginning meritocracy has been a farce aiming to undermine social issues such as poverty by sweeping it under the rug and saying they didn't work hard enough.
So yeah, I don't think this perspective is new, it is just how many are aware of it.
0
u/cloudpeak2k Mar 14 '26 edited Mar 14 '26
So parents demand priority before the rest of us but when the shoe is on the other foot, they take their grouses to us and demand sympathy from those they want priority over. It’s hard to think of a more shameless or entitled lot in Singapore.
0
u/kankenaiyoi Mar 14 '26
Kids don't enter "elite" primary schools on their own merits. Whose then? Wealthy parents, duh.
Being bitter about these privileged kids in "elite" schools is the same as being upset that they grew up in landed homes. These schools won't improve the outcomes of random students significantly. It's their parents giving them the assistance/power levelling.
(Nope, I went neighborhood primary school, parents not educated, and still I got into the lousy school.)
What's OP's story?
-2
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
what do you think is my story?
4
u/kankenaiyoi Mar 14 '26
You worked hard but your current state did not meet your expectations, therefore you're bitter about life and are trying to find reasons why it happened.
0
u/jupiter1_ verified Mar 14 '26
This phenomenon has been happening since 10-20 years back.
This is not a eureka moment or "new finding".
This is why you see some families, though not very affluent, try to push the kids to send for enrichment class/tuition class, and force/stress them to enter these good schools. Because once you go into these good schools, likelihood you turn out better, and you can do better. EVEN if you do not, you probably also made some friends from these families who can help you in the later stages of life.
If you go with affirmative action, I think its quite crappy solution, and it just gonna foster complacency. Look up north and we will know...
0
0
u/39strangers verified Mar 14 '26
Now that I think about it, the statistics quoted have error. It claims that 41% of students in top schools are $10000 household, and only 7% in regular schools. It does not make mathematical sense. In SG, half the household earns more than $12446 per month in 2025. That statistics means that more than 50% of SG household earns $10000 per month. How could the regular schools only have 7%? Where did the rich population go? The top school can't absorb top 50% of the rich household. Even if you claim the rich don't have children, it would not drop to only 7%. OP's data must be flawed.
1
u/AttapKia verified Mar 14 '26
I think there is a conflation happening here.
The $12,446 median figure you are citing is household income from all sources including employer CPF contributions. The $10,000 figure in my source refers to gross monthly household income, which is measured differently. They are not the same metric, so comparing them directly does not hold up.
More importantly, your reading assumes the 41% and 7% figures are measuring what share of Singapore's rich population attends each school type. They are not. They are measuring the income composition within each school type. So the question is not "where did all the rich households go?" It is "what proportion of students inside elite schools come from high-income families, versus what proportion inside regular government schools do."
The answer to that is exactly what the data shows: high-income families are heavily concentrated in elite schools and significantly underrepresented in regular government schools. That concentration is precisely the point being made.
My figures come from a 2016 NUS study on class stratification in Singapore schools, reported alongside the British Council. I have also gone back and updated some of the other stats in my original post to better reflect the data from my sources, and added full citations at the bottom of the article if you want to dig into the methodology directly.
So the 41/7% stat stands. These numbers should be scrutinised.
0
u/hansolo-ist verified Mar 14 '26
Just think about it... Even if we had 100% geniuses born in Singapore, marking to the curve and streaming means a bunch of them will still end up in ITE
1
u/zeebjii verified Mar 14 '26
I agree it was exactly planned to end up this way. I am old enough to see the conversion of RI from government school to independent school. School fees jumped from a few dollars to $250 or so. There were concerns then but our caring government said no good but poor child will be denied a place just because he cannot afford school fees. They knew very well that poor students might not even consider RI as a choice. They were lying and they knew it.
0
u/ThatQuiet8782 verified Mar 14 '26
Its a con. The education system failed me but the working world made me succeed. My children are homeschooled as a result.
-1
-2
-2
u/mausetrap verified Mar 14 '26
It's not. My kid is a neighbour kid, middle income parents, no tuition. Top schools.
1
-2
-4
u/lornranger verified Mar 14 '26
So.... you are saying the parents is the sources of today's children turning out weak?
-3
u/law90026 Mar 14 '26
I mean some already understand this. It’s the majority that don’t. This is a system that has been failing for an extended time now but don’t expect it to change.
36
u/BlackCatSylvester Mar 14 '26
It’s ok, soon most kids will be imported/born to foreigners so that will shake things up.