Much ado has been made of the 'elitist' attittudes reflected by Wee Shu Min's reply to Derek Wee's post. (I discovered this online blogtalk sensation two weeks late, after the nadir of criticism, or just outright massacre of WSM, is just about letting up, which allows me to proceed with my solitary musings undisturbed).
Firstly, let me state my position; where im coming and come from, as is so important when you are tackling the issue from the viewpoint of someone involved- part of, within, the spectrum of class distinctions (or at least perceptions of class distinctions) so painfully brought out by this incident.
For all our philanthropic pretensions, i doubt if me or my parents ( im not that old, as you witness)- assuming we are the microcosm of the upper middle class- can truly empathize with the concerns raised by Derek. And so with Derek, to the poor he feel he represents.
In this clash of mentalities, I find that fundamentally, i concur with WSM, but with these mentalities- or her personal philosophies, she takes them to an extreme degree which i can neither fufill nor hence can stomach, but which she can, and so justifiably, though stupidly, takes to its inevitably belligerent form.
What I am saying is, her attitudes (im thinking about the survival of the fittest here) are unsavoury, but justifiable, because of the success with which they have brought her- she is the top student for the Os and is now, after all, a humans scholar. I would go so far as to suggest that her achievements are the reflections of her fierce attitudes towards survival and success. Are we surprised, after all, that the most successful people in society are some of the most driven?
As to why it becomes morally justified to impose this on others, perhaps one could consider applying this to to the larger context of Singapore itself. I offer no answers here; to stay in Singapore is to subscribe to this... mentality.
With WSM at the crosshairs (but really, you know its the whull damned class of white-shirts and high-ranking bureaucrats), comments say that these privileged assholes dont understand the hard work that the common man has to endure. Maybe. For the truly lower class, the chances of actually climbing the social ladder is low. Poor environment and atmosphere plagues the student. Equal opportunities are there- no students are denied places in RI, at least, cause they are poor- but equality of circumstance is not, and no one can do much about this. You cannot dispute this. Because of the distinction between these two equalities, all that deterministic vs free will, shit, crops up. Suffice to say, from, say the bottom strata, the higher up you go, lower middle, middle, check, check, free will becomes more important and deterministic inevitabilities less so. Ive seen MPs sons, complete balloon heads, f(MDA)ing assholes really, "get in" despite failing to meet the mark. But ive also seen others who fail, like we do, and somehow fail to get up *bless him*. Others rise from the valley, that is, the 'heartlands'. My point is, the issue of personal responsibility is real and quite inescapable. I may not be the most worthy proponent of this; witness my guilt;and it sounds all to PAPish. But wth, I never claimed that they didnt have great hegemony over sub-political aspects of our lives.
The disdain expressed is elitist and reflect elitism here, but the underlying mentalities from which they grow are meritocratic, albiet a hard, realistic one- no i didn't plagiarize this from ST; i wrote this long ago. (On a sidenote, i feel that the emphasis placed on personal gain with the lack of ideals and the idea of servitude in public service among most Singaporeans in general, the upper class included, as the source of PAP arrogance perceived in the Wee senior's response ). To attempt to suceed, is to work within the hard truths of meritocracy, monetary and thymotic in its reward.
