On the Hwa Chong name

I am incredibly tempted to start by saying: that something is wrong with the competition when the two losing teams are of such incredibly different caliber, in terms of content, presentation, and amount of hard-work put into the presentation.

But that is unfair to both the other teams who had worked hard for their win, and for the organizers of the competition who had set out with good intentions.

What, I think, would be a better reflection is that there is something wrong with the topic we chose. I bet there is a certain kind of irony with us, privileged Hwa Chong students, talking about education inequity. Whatever that comes out from our mouth would be coloured by the fact that people think we are in no position to talk about it empathetically.

At this point, a reader’s thoughts might be: come on, it’s just a loss, get over it, a competition must have winners and losers so stop being so salty. The thing is, this isn’t just about me being upset with the results. I have learnt about success and failure from this and I think this is an important lesson to anyone growing up, really, but especially to us Hwa Chong students. We are so used to the idea that hard work=success and we are used to reaping the results of this belief hence which reinforces it. Our absolute faith in the meritocratic system is actually kind of childish.

The truth that we avert our gaze from and wholeheartedly devote ourselves to meritocracy to avoid: the best/most competent do not always get to win. There are simply things we cannot control and there is no way we can be alright with knowing that our own ability is not enough. I was confronted with this loss, almost as if it were a gaping shark mouth thrashing towards the surface I had been drinking from. Realizing this was perhaps me tip-toing into the waters of the adult world. But my theory is that we are still youths and far from jaded if we could realize that this does not call for despair. We are only looking for affirmations in the wrong place.

I didn’t need to win this competition to prove anything; real recognizes real. Why bother myself with the attention of the wrong people who are looking out for something that I do not possess? As regrettable as the results were, I think I have come to appreciate that the affirmations from my friends, the organizers and even the competitors were better measures of reward. Competitions always have their behind-the-scenes, but I hope I am allowed to believe in the genuineness of other witness’ affirmation. And I hope we all will have (and become) one of these people who will give you a hug and let you know you are appreciated.

Aside from my personal gains, I think there needs to be a conversation about my chosen topic: education equity. There has been a message sent, about the nature of education equity in Singapore, about our idealism and capacity for hope, and it has enraged me.

The messaging behind the explanation for our loss was unjustified. After conversing with the judging panel, and if I understood correctly, we failed

1. to be realistic about how youths could use innovation to help promote equity
2. to provide on the ground information because we don’t understand the situation and are victims of the “highly theoretical” teachings of a Junior College
3. to show how we could ensure an egalitarian distribution of resources to those who cannot access it

And here is my problem with each of these messages:

1. While our presentation was far from perfect, is there no value so long as it is unrealistic? Is this what a highly utilitarian culture has come to? The reason why there was value in presenting before an audience is so that our message can seize them by the collar and shake them into doing something. The reason why the competition is about youths is because youths are different: we are vulnerable to the romantic possibilities that we can make a change, no matter how cruel the reality is. While I am not saying that feasibility should not be a point of consideration, it should not be a point that holds enough weight to justify “failing” a team, so to speak. Consider this: if we are demanded to be realistic, there is really nothing youths can do about a problem even the government and professionals cannot solve. Then there is no point in having this discussion and it becomes so easy to justify our indifference: “sorry it’s just not realistic for us to even start considering the problem”.

2. Why has our message on education inequity got to do with the school logo I am wearing? Just because I am from Hwa Chong Junior College, in every sense of that word, does not mean that I do not understand the on the ground situation. It would be considered rude to assume that any neighborhood school student isn’t well-to-do, so why does the logic not apply the other way round? It was insulting to me, someone who lives in a 3-room flat, someone from a single-parent family, and of course it would be too crazy of an idea that we actually understood the realities “on the ground”. If the discussion needs to be started, why does it seem that the message is that we are excluding certain groups of people from it? Education inequity is as much about those suffering on the shorter end of the inequality stick and those benefitting from the longer end of it.
3. Why must we approach education inequity from an egalitarian perspective? That line of logic only serves to feed our emotional response to the issue (the seductive idea of no one having an advantage over us) and does not serve to tackle the issue. The society needs to have systems in place to decide how to distribute the limited resources: one cannot decrease the quality of overall education just to make sure the everyone is one the same playing field. Something I think makes more sense is for those who have excess can lift everyone else up if we are willing to share our privileges! What I had failed to realize in positioning the argument this way: hot button issues always come with a complementary set of preconceptions that fall in a generally agreed upon direction (call it perks of groupthink) Set innovation and education inequity together, both hot button issues, and the unconscious bias about both issues becomes hard to overcome. When we were deciding on our topics, was it a non-choice that forces us to conform to picking safe topics right from the start?

And herein lies the main issue I realized from this: if there is anything I have learnt from wearing the overripe banana blazer, it is that we must learn to shoulder the weight of the Hwa Chong name. Hulking, like Atlas with the globe on his back.

The winds are starting to shift in Singapore and I am convinced that our society’s threshold for elitism has been reached. As much as we would like to believe we have made it into Hwa Chong on our own merits and deserve it, many of our privileges are going to be redistributed. Does it mean we are any less capable or any less deserving? No, and feel free to see it as unfair, but sometimes there needs to be greater representation for representation’s sake. I am not going to let the way the adults run the world kill something in me. Ask me to be as realistic, but the last thing I would do is to smother idealism and dreams, the faith that I could change the world.

With the Hwa Chong name, we need to learn how to cope with not getting affirmations through results. That is how the environment is going to change. So we must still remain confident in ourselves, with or without winning everything, regardless of how much effort we put in. That’s just the way the world works, and that I say not like a world-weary and soul-stunted defeatist. We must learn. Just like how any other students have been doing all these while.