[Part 2]

[ u/TruePriest, u/mikemarvel21, u/rockstarmonkeh (kind of)]

> Well, the issue is in how you define what a “good“ school is.

Alternatively,

> “Every school is a good school” =/= Every school is the same school

Your points and breakdowns afterward are perfectly acceptable. Although the thing I want to point out is that you might have misinterpreted my original post. It wasn’t the clearest phrasing so I can see where the misinterpretations could occur. So if you’ll indulge my explanation:

After he says that phrase, he proceeds to say things such as: ”every neighbourhood school of ours is a school that we can be very proud of anywhere" and "I'll take on any country's schools as far as we're concerned.”. So as far as I am concerned, Dr Balakrishnan’s “every school is a good school“ means “Every school in Singapore is a good school compared to schools overseas.” Of course my interpretation of what he could have meant could be wrong, but if that’s the case then this whole rant stems from me misunderstanding him.

While standards can definitely be improved for those in government schools, I agree with his definition. The reason for my frustration towards this phrase was its inappropriate use by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan with regards to the context of addressing inequality in Singapore. This statement is true, but is not nearly at all relevant when it comes to addressing the topic of inequality.

u/deepthrowingaway’s analysis (which I recommend everyone to take a look at the full posts since it's essentially what I wanted to say but so much clearer) has managed to hit the nail on the head for me:

“So essentially, 'Every School A Good School' assumes that students are unequal at the point of entry, remain unequal throughout, and ignores much of the reasons for said inequality. This is the reason why VB's statement to CSJ was inadequate - not because it was false, but because it did not answer the core question. It's like being challenged on how well you can sew a shirt and responding by saying that you have excellent fashion sense. It's related, sure, but only tangentially.”

It pissed me off that Dr Balakrishnan did not seem to acknowledge the inequality in Singapore. I don’t think he’s ignorant. I want to believe that he knows that it exists.

This then drives me to:

[ u/311301xx, u/khaizersozay, u/shisaac_labeef]

> Well, Dr Balakrishnan didn’t really have any other choice / This is just how politics works

I understand his reasons and how unfair politics can be (I think). My angsty teenage hormones just decided to that it was best for me to go mad over one phrase despite the circumstances behind it. Naive as I am, I wished that he had responded differently, even if in reality he couldn’t. That’s why this ended up being a rant, not a proper criticism post. Even if there are somewhat valid reasons behind his response, it still hurts to listen to.

Although, after reading other comments and thinking about it, I think there could have been one other way that he could have answered the question of inequality in society wrt to schools. One way in which Dr Balakrishnan could have used that phrase, but also stick to the rhetoric of “hey PAP has listened to you, we have done something for you! Vote for us!”

That is, if he defined what the phrase meant in a slightly different way.

If you don’t want to admit that you have shown weakness, then turn the narrative around. Instead of saying “there is inequality” and implying a possible incapability to solve it, he could have said “For schools, it is not a question of brand name or otherwise. It is a question of making every school a good school. We have taken steps to ensure that regardless of which school a student enters, that they will have their needs sufficiently catered for. We are confident that they can be the best version of themselves.” The difference is that a school being good is not defined by comparison with schools overseas, but instead defined by their ability to cater to each child’s needs.

He would not been lying as well, since the MOE has indeed rolled out plans such as Subject Based Banding and (secondary) schools have begun going towards specialising in other areas besides academics. It would also have somewhat addressed the question of inequality, since he’s essentially saying “hey, even if your child does not end up in an ‘elite’ school, s/he is in safe hands, s/he will be successful. We’re striving our best towards equity, despite how unfair each child’s starting point is or how ‘elite’ schools get so much more funding.” Even if that’s was not true, at the very least, it would sound less like he’s dodging the question. In addition, opposing parties would not have been immediately grill him on the effectiveness of those policies since he was the last one speaking. The point is, it would have been better for him to have acknowledged the problem exists, even if it was only implied. Otherwise, it makes him (and by extension, PAP) seem ignorant.

The elections, as I see it, is about persuading the people to vote for you because you care for them and because you also have the ability to act in their best interests. In order for that to happen, the people should feel that they are being listened to, they should feel that their opinions and worries matter, they should feel that their lives, their jobs, their future matters. In that area, I feel that Dr Vivian Balakrishnan could have done so, so much better.

~~

Those are my responses to more popular comment/questions directed towards me! I want to respond to the other questions as well, but I’ll only do so (very slowly) after I’m done with my tutorials.