I. INTRODUCTION Singapore has always taken pride in being a meritocracy and its embrace of meritocracy has been the cornerstone of the nation’s success story. Over the years, Singapore’s meritocracy has emphasised on “equality of opportunity” over “equality of outcomes”; shaping a relatively level playing field where the most capable and hardworking individuals regardless of ethnicity or social classes have an equal opportunity to rise to the top. While the State has always heralded the success of meritocracy, the systemic flaws and failures that were once side-lined in the public eye are becoming increasingly prevalent and visible today. This paper on “Examining Meritocracy and Elitism in Singapore” serves to explore the inherent contradictions within the concept of meritocracy and investigate the systemic failures arising from the dissonance caused by how meritocracy is practised in Singapore where the inevitable social and income inequalities results in an elitist system which perpetuates itself. The central research question is how meritocracy shapes the Singapore elite and in turn how the elite shapes meritocracy in the country. In this paper, the elite is defined as the class of English-educated Singaporeans who subsequently rises to the top as the political and bureaucratic elite, unless otherwise specified. This paper will discuss how the elite accumulates an increasing degree and concentration of influence which allows them to consolidate their dominance over the rest of society, as well as its attendant consequences. This paper will thus illustrate how instead of seeking to bridge the social divide, the elites’ privileged and entrenched position actually leads to limiting social mobility as they continue to safeguard their self-interests. II. MERITOCRACY AND ITS DANGERS Meritocracy was a term coined by Michael Young in his book, The Rise of Meritocracy, where governance would be by those regarded to possess merit.[1] Merit in this case equates to the combination of intelligence and effort.[2] Those individuals who possess merit are identified at an early age, selected for an intensive education and prepared for their future roles.[3] Beyond differentiating social roles, a meritocracy also entails a system of rewarding merit and positive results with incentives and rewards.[4] However, the greatest virtue of meritocracy is its idea of equality of opportunity. According to John E Roemer, there are two prevailing conceptions of equality of opportunity today. The first argues for society to “level the playing field” so that the disadvantaged could compete on fair grounds with the rest.[5] The second is the non-discrimination principle where all individuals who have the required attributes relevant for a job should be judged on an equal footing along with the rest with respect to the relevant attributes.[6] These tenets of meritocracy representing social mobility and social justice thus frame meritocracy as an appealing proposition. While meritocracy has been celebrated as a social ideal in America and Singapore, the ultimate irony is that Young wrote the book to serve as a satirical warning against the ills associated with emergence of an exclusive social class – the elite.[7] According to Christopher Hayes, for meritocracy to truly measure up to its original ideals, it has to comply with two fundamental principles. The first is the ‘Principle of Difference’ whereby people acknowledge the vast differentiation in aptitude among themselves, willingly accept this natural hierarchy and allow the system to match the most capable individuals to the most challenging tasks.[8] The second is the Principle of Mobility where a competitive selection process enables people to rise and fall along with their accomplishments and failures.[9] Society thus functions like a “pump” that drives those who are capable upwards while funneling the mediocre downwards.[10] However in reality, instead of society achieving this ideal, it tends to move closer towards Young’s apocalyptic vision. [11]Hayes thus coined the term “The Iron Law of Meritocracy” which “states that eventually inequality produced by a meritocratic system will grow large enough to subvert the mechanisms of mobility”. [12]The unequal outcomes produced by the meritocratic system would now render equal opportunity impossible. III. THE SINGAPORE ELITE The ideological roots of meritocracy being embedded in Singapore’s culture stem from Lee’s elitist orientation and the need to produce an elite with the wisdom to spearhead Singapore’s nation-building project. Brought up in an elitist environment, Singapore’s Founding Father Lee Kuan Yew’s formative ideological conception of the Singapore elite was shaped during his Cambridge days when he subscribed to Arnold Joseph Toynbee’s argument that “social progress depends on a ‘creative minority’ which embodies progressivism” while the “societal majority is largely bereft of creativity and vision thus reduced to simply following the elite”.[13] Adhering to Hayes’ ‘Principle of Difference’, Lee’s firm belief in eugenics meant he saw the elite as the product of genetic ordering and unequal distribution of talents within society. [14] According to Michael Barr and Skrbiš, the elite was a ‘crucial strategic asset’ in Singapore’s quest for nation-building, hence Lee placed a high premium on quality leadership.[15]As described by Young, meritocracy was thus adopted as a continuous systemic winnowing process to sieve out the best and the brightest from Singapore’s small gifted gene pool, to groom and prepare them for their role as the elite.[16] In Barr and Skrbiš book “Constructing Singapore”, they systemically outline the elite selection and formation process in Singapore. Starting from kindergarten and primary school, a competitive and kiasu[17] culture has been embedded in this examination meritocracy which prizes academic excellence.[18] As Singaporeans move up the education system into secondary schools and junior colleges, the ‘scholars’ are continuously sorted from the ‘commoners’ and the would-be future elite are herded together into a small number of elite institutions.[19] The best are offered the coveted Public Service Commission Scholarships, Singapore Armed Forces Scholarships and those at the top of the pyramid of public service would then be absorbed into the elite Administrative Service and made mandarins.[20] The resulting power centralization within the political and bureaucratic elite in Singapore was highlighted by Ho Khai Leong. He concedes that the pervasive extent of state socialization has nurtured a cookie-cutter generation of leaders with relatively similar political outlook cut out from the same mould. [21] The homogeneity in the social and educational background as illustrated by Barr and Skrbiš paved the way for organisational networking, ideological synchronisation and class identification, laying the foundation for elite unity and cohesion.[22] Ho describes the emergence of an “unbreakable network and circuitry” of almost insurmountable centralised power within the elite.[23] IV. SOCIAL IMMOBILITY – WHITHER THY SINGAPORE DREAM? The collection of stories put together by former Permanent Secretary Tan Yong Soon best epitomized the title of his book – ‘Living the Singapore Dream’ – which recounted how 24 individuals from humble backgrounds benefited from a meritocratic system according equal opportunity which enabled them to maximize their potential and reached the top echelon of Singapore’s society.[24] However, these rags-to-success stories are becoming increasingly rare. When based solely on income from work per household member and after accounting for government transfers, Singapore’s GINI coefficient has progressively risen from 0.425 in 2000 to 0.446 in 2010.[25] Feeling the impact of these figures on the ground, 70 percent of 400 respondents in a Straits Times survey stated they were concerned about the income gap between the rich and the poor and an even larger 83 percent agreed that the income gap affects social mobility.[26] In today’s society stratified by meritocracy, globalization and economic forces, the Singapore Dream has become an increasingly elusive concept that is often beyond reach of Singaporeans from the lower strata of society. V. FAMILY PEDIGREE AND EDUCATION PERFORMANCE The ability to achieve success in today’s world is no longer dependent on an individual’s sole merit but is increasingly path-dependent on an individual’s family background which has a high correlation with his educational attainment. Then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew once shared some glaring statistics where more than half of students studying in top schools like Raffles Institution, Anglo-Chinese School (Independent) and Nanyang Girls’ High had fathers who were degree holders – a stark contrast as compared to 13.1% at Chai Chee Secondary (which had the highest percentage amongst four schools where data was obtained).[27] Lee attributed this phenomenon to the “more favourable learning environment at home” shaped by better-educated parents, highlighting the increasing deficiency of the system in ensuring and realising meritocracy.[28] Apart from Lee’s eugenics argument, naturally students with better-educated parents were also bound to come from families with better socio-economic backgrounds. Better-educated parents would have a higher earning capacity that accompanies their jobs and qualifications. The higher earning capacity also translates into higher amounts of disposable income that could be channeled into their children’s education and development – enrolling in tuition, paying for premium co-curricular activities (CCA) and enrichment courses. According to a 2012 survey published by Blackbox Research, 67 percent of Singaporeans have had children enrolled in tuition at some point in time while only 20 percent in the lowest monthly household income bracket of $4,000 and below have had their children enrolled in tuition.[29] The disparity is a clear reflection of the lesser accessibility to tuition for households without financial means. For respondents with children enrolled in tuition, an alarming 51 percent spend more than $500 a month per child.[30] In a country dubbed the “Tuition Nation”, the ability to afford tuition is evidently a game-changer in a student’s performance in school. Assuming equal intelligence and diligence, a child who enjoys additional education support with financial resources is likely to perform better academically than one deprived of the opportunity. Based on Professor Changhui Kang’s research findings, a 10 percent increase in private tuition expenditure would translate to an improved test result of 0.56 percentile.[31] [32] In a nutshell, the inequality of resources and access to resources has meant that a disproportionate number of people have unequal ability to benefit from the supposed equal opportunities associated with a meritocracy, thereby leading to the unequal outcomes. Even as the Ministry of Education gradually shifts away from assessment by exams and places greater emphasis on alternative assessment modes such as oral presentations starting from primary school, the playing field continues to be uneven as examinations are losing their vital role as a social leveller.[33] The Straits Times Opinion Editor Chua Mui Hoong cited examples of how ‘working-class children’ were disadvantaged by their “native handicap” as compared to the ‘well-travelled children of professionals’.[34] In retrospect, one might also see this as a form of sub-conscious elitist policy-making by the incumbent elite which perpetuates continued elite entrenchment by conferring an indirect advantage on their children at a young age. Apart from the obvious disproportional advantage that students from better socio-economic backgrounds enjoy from tuition, they benefit even more significantly from their parents’ ability to pay for a more holistic education experience. In today’s world where academic achievements are still crucial but no longer the sole determinant to success, an all-rounded education with achievements across diverse fields is the pre-requisite to renowned universities, the much coveted scholarships and the gateway to the elite class. Drawing parallels from Chua’s argument, assuming two students are on par with equal academic excellence, the student who had the luxury to attend overseas conferences, organise overseas community involvement projects and had these ‘key achievements’ padded on his curriculum vitae would be deem a ‘better leader’ and ‘all-rounder’ vis-à-vis a less well-to-do student who could not afford to ‘buy’ these experience and yet had to take on part-time jobs to help the family make ends meet. Inevitably, the student from a wealthier background would be deemed a better candidate for scholarships and university applications with his richer life experience as well as wider world exposure.[35] Family wealth, with its high correlation with education performance and path-dependent consequences, is thus indisputably the number one determinant of a young Singaporean’s future and his opportunity to rise to the top. Hence, the current elite class and their children remains firmly entrenched in their position, while the gap between them and rest continues to widen. VI. ELITE SOCIALISATION AND HAVING THE RIGHT CONNECTIONS Besides family wealth that offers a distinct edge, having the right connections also opens doors to opportunities that could propel one upwards on the social ladder. When asked to comment on the widening social divide in 2009, Lee Kuan Yew rightfully conceded that it was “unavoidable in a maturing society”. [36] Lee cited the example of China which started as a “classless society” but grew to favour those with the right connections over time.[37] Dashing the dreams of many, Lee reiterated his stand in when he opined that “the reality as societies developed is that leaders often come from the same social circles, educational backgrounds and even family trees.”[38] 84 percent out of 400 respondents in a survey by The Straits Times also concurred with Lee’s views as they flagged ‘knowing the right people’ as vital in helping individuals climb up the economic ladder.[39] However, the reality is that majority of the ‘right connections’ are forged from young on the school grounds. The privileged children will congregate in branded kindergartens like Montessori then move on to premium schools like Nanyang Primary and Tao Nan Primary. Following the meritocratic process, the best will be filtered and congregated in top schools like Raffles Institution. Not only are these students invested with the best resources in the form of good teachers and world-class facilities, another key valuable outcome of such an education lies in the elite socialization and networking which concentrates power and influence within this small circle. According to Kenneth P. Langton, schools “reinforce social and political class differences” because of the homogeneity in the social background of students.[40] This happens with the continuous networking and the culture of self-conscious privilege within these students that fosters a sense of elite unity and cohesion. As these children spent their formative years together in the elite schools, the camaraderie and collective experience would further translate into personal relationships and beneficial old school ties as they progress on in society. A glance at the political elite, one would realise the current Cabinet ministers hailed primarily from three schools – Raffles Institution, Anglo-Chinese School and Catholic High.[41] Another glance at the bureaucratic elite would reveal nine out of 21 permanent secretaries having Rafflesian roots. [42] This is a reflection of preferential self-selection within the elite based on their personal connections at work. In the business community, the old boys’ network of Anglo-Chinese School enable entrepreneurs and professionals to settle business deals with ease. This is what led sociologist Dr Vincent Chua to conclude that being ‘embedded’ in resource-rich networks helps to propel people upwards in a meritocracy, and that prompted his colleague Irene Ng to emphasise how that ‘first leg’ into a good school yields better results.[43] These realities underscore the intangible benefits of an elite education – one that is becoming increasingly exclusive and out of reach of common Singaporeans. VII. RECOGNISING THE FLAWS OF MERITOCRACY The worrying social phenomenon of education reinforcing the social divide instead of functioning as a social leveller did not go unnoticed by the Prime Minister when he acknowledged the growing stratification of Singapore society in Parliament during the debate on the President’s Address in 2011.[44] He recognised that “the children of successful people are doing better, the children of less successful people are doing less well. [45] When Lee Kuan Yew openly acknowledged that an individual’s pedigree and network were now the keys to success in Singapore, he also indirectly admitted the systemic flaws of meritocracy and that the egalitarian society he had sought to build had reached a tipping point. The entrenchment of the elite, growing social immobility and increasing distance of the less well-to-do from achieving the Singapore Dream was not a perception but a true reality when the Prime Minister openly admitted that “fewer children from lower-income families are rising to the top of the heap”.[46] Hayes’ prophetic vision governed by the Iron Law of Meritocracy where the Principle of Difference overwhelmed the Principle of Mobility had now become a sad reality in Singapore. VIII. PRESERVATION OF ELITES’ INTERESTS Although the elite is aware of the growing social inequality and increasing social distance of others from realising the Singapore Dream, their refusal to adopt groundbreaking measures to alter the status quo is a reflection of the preservation and defence of their self-interest. According to Higley et al, the political behavior of elites is ultimately shaped by their possession and exercise of power determining their interest position.[47] Classical elite theorist Robert Michels succinctly summarises elite behavior by saying, ‘he who has acquired power will almost always endeavour to consolidate it and to extend it, to multiply the ramparts which defend his position, and to withdraw himself from the control of the masses.’[48] Michels argues that the elite’s privileged position in decision-making and exclusive formulation of organisational policies will only serve to reflect the elite’s self-interests instead of that of the masses. The controversial debate surfaced when Economics Professor Lim Chong Yah, former Chairman of the National Wage Council proposed a radical three-year plan where top earners have their income frozen while low-wage workers have their wages raised by huge quantums - 15 percent for each of the first two years and 20 percent in the third year. [49] Although the proposal was a plausible solution to narrow the widening income gap and bridge the social divide in Singapore, Professor Lim’s idea of a wage revolution was consecutively dismissed by the top brass of the ruling leadership in quick succession. One could argue that such a proposal in favour of ‘equality of outcomes’ pierces deep and threatens the ideological hearts of the elites who benefited from meritocracy which favours equality of opportunities. Beyond that, as evinced in Higley et al’s argument, the elites would be “more than a little hesitant” about recommendations that would alter the “character of society’s economic organisation in a dramatic or rapid way”.[50] In this case, Professor Lim’s proposal was not palatable to the elites as they would emerge as the primary losers while the low-income earners benefit. As economic and financial resources are the roots of the ruling elite’s powers, they undoubtedly see the contingent need to preserve the organisational context on which their power rests and engage in defensive behavior. [51] Interestingly, the ruling elite was galvanised into what Michels defined as a ‘compact phalanx’ in defence against the masses when their positions were endangered.[52] Labour Chief Lim Swee Say immediately cautioned on the possibility of “big job losses and structural unemployment” and labelled Professor Lim’s recommendation as “too risky”.[53] Then Minister of State Tan Chuan-Jin further reiterated the government’s commitment to its “balanced approach which involves deliberate intervention to support restructuring, raise skills and ensure lower-wage workers get a fair share of productivity gains”.[54] This alternative policy proposal suggested by a prominent economist and senior establishment figure posed so much threat to the elite’s interests such that even the Prime Minister stood out to defend the elite’s interests. In his May Day Rally Speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong publicly dismissed Professor Lim’s proposal as unfeasible and once again echoed his government’s stand where driving up productivity would be the only primary feasible solution.[55] This collective elite action illustrates a clear sense of elite unity and solidarity to ensure the very basis of their power is not under serious attack. Challenging the dominant paradigm held by the ruling elites, many detractors accurately highlighted the limits to productivity growth and questioned its true ability to address rising income inequality. Dr Tan Meng Wah rightly pointed out that even with the accomplishment of productivity growth, “income growth for PMETs (professionals, managers, executives and technicians) will outstrip that of unskilled workers, broadening the income gap”, thereby not solving the problem.[56] The government’s firm commitment towards pursuing market fundamentalism could be interpreted as more than just a factor of groupthink. As explained by Dr Tan Meng Wah, the continued worship of free market capitalism “allows power to be skewed towards increasingly well-organised capital owners”, “rewarding capital owners” while “shunning workers” who work hard to make ends meet.[57] In this case, these capital owners tend to be either the same members of the elite class or are closely inter-connected with it. As the vested interest of the government is to get re-elected and retain political legitimacy, hence they will never want to merely protect their own interest, but also that of the business elite. The political elite’s sole fixation with echoing the productivity drive and stubborn reluctance to embrace alternative ways of redistributing the economic pie could thus been seen as an attempt at obfuscating citizens from knowing their on-going struggle to safeguard and protect their collective elite’s vested interests, entrenching their dominant position and deterring social mobility. IX. ELITES’ CONTINUED FLIRTATIONS WITH POWER Apart from defending its economic interests, the incumbent elite had also attempted to use its political and economic clout to alter the cultural status quo. It is worthy to note that besides creating societal hierarchy and a widening societal gap, meritocracy has played another significant role in redefining the composition of the dominant elite in Singapore. In the pre-independence days and early post-independence years, the wealthy Chinese merchants like Tan Kah Kee, Lee Kong Chian and Tan Lark Sye were the undisputed elite as they were community leaders who wielded tremendous powers with their corporate wealth and patronage systems through the clan associations and Chinese-medium schools. However, over time, meritocracy has gradually displaced the Chinese merchant elites and replaced the top of the pyramid with an English-educated elite. [58] The tension sparked off when then Minister for Education Dr Ng Eng Hen, an English-educated alumnus of Anglo Chinese School, hinted on the possibility of lowering the weightage of Mother Tongue in the Primary School Leaving Examinations.[59] Ng highlighted his worry for students who increasingly hail from the English-speaking families and the possible impediments in their educational pathway if they did well in other subjects but faltered at their Mother Tongue. [60]Ng’s remarks had hit on the raw nerves of the Chinese-educated and larger Chinese community which triggered a fierce backlash. In the weeks that followed, the Chinese community retaliated fervently with a groundswell of public opinion via daily forum letters and online petitions[61] etc. More than 2,500 members of the public even descended at Speakers’ Corner on9 May 2010 to sign a mass petition against Ng’s suggestions.[62] Nevertheless the vocal English-educated Singaporeans also articulated their views in support of Ng. The controversy only ended when the Prime Minister together with Ng stepped out to allay the concerns of the Chinese community, and Ng openly apologising for the misunderstanding. Such an episode reflected a tipping point that shed light on the long muted tensions of the deeply-bifurcated Singapore society between the English-educated elites and the Chinese-educated community. Ng’s concerns about students who were deprived of better opportunities due to their weakness in their Mother Tongue actually underscored his desire to preserve the interest of the elites today – majority who hailed from English-speaking families. Ng’s views actually pander towards his fellow elites and hope their children would not be handicapped by their lack of proficiency in their Mother Tongue. Unlike the debate over the widening income gap, in this case the elite’s attempted flirtations with power met with little success. The episode demonstrated that the ‘silent majority’ of Chinese-speaking Singaporeans would not remain silent indefinitely but could actually be galvanised and rise to the occasion to defend their views. The elite’s defeat concession with Ng’s apology was a testament of the ruling elite’s recognition of the powerful voter base that could put the elite’s position in jeopardy. This case has demonstrated the limits of elite’s dominance in Singapore. Like the low-income Singaporeans who were helpless and powerless in their struggle to catch up with high earning Singaporeans, interestingly in this situation the elite’s political and economic clout were actually rendered useless, putting them at the mercy of the larger Chinese-educated, Chinese-speaking community. X. CONCLUSION This paper has illustrated how meritocracy has empowered a generation of Singaporeans to achieve the Singapore Dream via its ‘Principle of Mobility’. However, the very success of the meritocratic system has led it to abandon its original egalitarian ideals. The Iron Law of Meritocracy has set in Singapore where the growing social inequality and the entrenched elite have successfully subverted the mechanisms of mobility. Instead of traditionally moving up the ladder by merit, family pedigree and elite socialisation are now the game changers that concentrated influence and consolidate the elite’s power for perpetuity. The debate over the wage shock therapy had exemplified the dominance of elites over the masses. Nonetheless, the elite’s dominance also had its limits as evinced in the Mother Tongue controversy. Against the backdrop of widening social divide, if this tension between the elite and non-elite, rich and poor, English-educated and Chinese-educated becomes mismanaged, we edge closer towards Young’s apoloclapytic vision and the “Occupy Wall Street” movement could well be a harbinger of the social unrest that is going to befall Singapore.

[1] Cited in Amartya Sen, "Merit and Justice", In Meritocracy and Economic Inequality. Eds. Kenneth Arrow, Samuel Bowles, and Steven Surlauf (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000), p. 7. [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] Ibid., p. 8. [5] John E, Roemer. "Equality of opportunity." Meritocracy and Economic Inequality. Ed. Kenneth Arrow, Samuel Bowles, and Steven Surlauf (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000), p. 17. [6] Ibid., p. 17 [7] Christopher Hayes, Twilight of the Elites: America after Meritocracy (New York: Crown, 2012), p. 42. [8] Ibid., p. 57. [9] Ibid. [10] Ibid. [11] Ibid. [12] Ibid. [13] Michael D. Barr, and Zlatko Skrbiš, "Constructing the Nation: Elitism and Ethnicity."Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity and the Nation-building Project(Copenhagen: NIAS, 2008), p. 44. [14] Ibid., p. 45. [15] Ibid., p. 44. [16] Diane K. Mauzy, "Leadership Succession in Singapore: The Best Laid Plans", Asian Survey 33.12 (1993): 1173. [17] Colloquial dialect term which literally meant ‘afraid to lose’. [18] Michael D. Barr, and Zlatko Skrbiš, "Grades, Kiauism and Race: Primary School and Beyond", in Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity and the Nation-building Project(Copenhagen: NIAS, 2008), p. 150 – 178. [19] Michael D. Barr, and Zlatko Skrbiš. "Sorting the ‘Scholars’ from the ‘Commoners’, "Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity and the Nation-building Project (Copenhagen: NIAS, 2008), p. 198.

[20]Michael D. Barr, and Zlatko Skrbiš, "Making a Mandarin: Inside the Administrative Elite, "Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity and the Nation-building Project. (Copenhagen: NIAS, 2008), p. 198. [21] Khai Leong, Ho, "Prime Ministerial Leadership and Policy-Making," The Politics of Policy-making in Singapore. Singapore (Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 32. [22] Ibid. [23] Ibid. [24] Yong Soon, Tan, Living the Singapore Dream, (Singapore: SNP International, 2007). [25] Singapore Department of Statistics. Singaporeans in the Workforce. Working paper. (Singapore: Singapore Department of Statistics, 2011). [26] Rachel Chang and Cheryl Ong, "Moving up in Life, the Singapore Way," The Straits Times, 24 July 2012. [27] Rachel Chang, "Parents' Background the Edge for Students at Top Schools: MM," The Straits Times, 25 January 2011. [28] Ibid. [29] Blackbox Research, Private Tuition in Singapore: A Whitepaper Release. (Singapore: Blackbox Research, 2012). [30] Ibid. [31] One percentile is one percent of the cohort of students taking the test. For example, the test score of the 99th percentile student is higher than that of 99 percent of the cohort. [32] Ivan Png, "Private Tuition: Does It Help?" The Straits Times, 1 July 2010: A28. [33] Mui Hoong, Chua, "A Place for Exams as Social Leveller," The Straits Times, 30 September 2012. [34] Ibid. [35] Eddie Teo, "PSC Chairman’s Open Letter," 24 July 2009, Singapore. [36] Jeremy Au Yong, "MM Lee: Social Divide Inevitable," The Straits Times, 20 October 2009. [37] Ibid. [38] Han, Fook Kwang, Ibrahim, Zuraidah, Mui Hoong Chua, Lydia Lim, Ignatius Low, Rachel Lin, and Robin Chan. "The Cream on Top." Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going. (Singapore: Straits Times Press, 2011) p. 104. [39] Rachel Chang and Cheryl Ong, "Moving up in Life, the Singapore Way," The Straits Times, 24 July 2012. [40] Kenneth P. Langton, "Informal Milieu: Peer Group and School," Political Socialization(London: Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 132. [41] See Annex A: Education history of Cabinet Ministers. [42] See Annex B: List of Permanent Secretaries from Raffles. [43] Rachel Chang and Cheryl Ong, "Moving up in Life, the Singapore Way," The Straits Times, 24 July 2012. [44] Fook Kwang, Han, "Education the Great Leveller; Keep the Singapore Dream Alive," The Straits Times, 12 October 2012. [45] Hsien Loong, Lee, "Speech by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the Debate on the President's Address," Singapore, 20 October 2011. [46] Ibid. [47] John Higley, G Lowell Field, and Knut Groholt. Elite Structure and Ideology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 74. [48] Robert Michels, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (London: New Brunswick (N.J), 1999), p. 206. [49] Shi Ning, Teh, "Rationale behind Lim Chong Yah's Wage Shock Therapy," The Business Times 11 April 2012. [50] Ibid., Higley p. 74. [51] Ibid., Higley p. 74-76. [52] Robert Michels, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (London: New Brunswick (N.J), 1999) p. 167. [53] Nisha Ramchandani, "Wage Shock Therapy May Not Be Answer to Higher Productivity," The Business Times 23 Apr. 2012. [54] Wage, Productivity Policy Must Avoid Extremes: Tan Chuan-Jin. Channel News Asia. Singapore, 14 May 2012. Television. Transcript. [55] Leslie Koh, "Prof’s Wage Proposal Won’t Work, Says PM," The Straits Times, 2 May 2012. [56] Meng Wah, Tan, "Limits in Linking Productivity to Wage Increases," The Straits Times, 9 June 2012. [57] Ibid. [58] Kian Woon, Kwok, "Chinese-educated Intellectuals in Singapore: Marginality, memory and modernity,” Asian Journal of Social Science 29.3 (2000): 495 - 519 [59] Sandra Davie, “Mother tongue weightage in PSLE could be cut,” The Straits Times, 23 April. 2012. [60] Ibid. [61] One of the Facebook petition pages: https://www.facebook.com/PSLE.chinese alone has 6055 likes. [62] Weng Kam Leong, “Is a new Chinese ground emerging?” The Straits Times, 27 November 2012.