Basket.

Gifted scheme: survey or report will not be an accurate measure of system's triumphs and failures - ST Online Forum, Jan 4

I REFER to Ms Maria Loh Mun Foong's letter, 'Has gifted scheme benefited society?' (ST, Jan 2).

It is unclear how Ms Loh and her allies would be satisfied by the 'examples of how society has benefited from the GEP' that she suggests the Ministry of Education (MOE) and parents of GEP graduates provide.
Indeed, The Straits Times has periodically published reports of how selected GEP alumni have led their lives since graduation. The GEP's longstanding detractors will wearily point out that these few anecdotes are hardly reflective of the GEP's success at cultivating a 'strong social conscience' overall, and may not adequately justify the 'lavish educational investment' on thousands of students.

Parents would be a clearly unreliable source of objective information, and few parents would be caught writing a less-than-humble Forum letter extolling their child's GEP-inspired virtues in a conservative Singaporean society well known for bashing its elite.

One may suggest that the MOE conduct a written survey of all GEP graduates assessing their 'social conscience' and 'moral values'. Such a study might shed more light on general majority trends among the GEP graduates. However, critics may accuse GEP graduates of being less forthcoming, especially if told that such a survey would eventually quantify the GEP's success, given the 'formidable intellectual prowess' GEP graduates are known for and their fierce loyalty towards the programme.

The GEP's influences on its graduates may be too complex and varied for a mere survey or centrefold report to measure its triumphs and failures, and political correctness will always limit the extent to which such information is made public. Ms Loh may have to content herself with sourcing for answers on her own. Happily, she will not have to look far, as many GEP graduates will gladly stand out and tell her their story.


I think I know this guy. Someone please take a look and confirm for me whether he is whom I think he is.

Anyway, the new year has seen a re-ignition of a very old debate: namely, the usefulness of the Gifted Education Programme, which I have of course addressed on more than one occasion previously. Few of the letters merited a response, but this one certainly does, if only for how abysmally written it is.

Let's have a look, shall we?


Indeed, The Straits Times has periodically published reports of how selected GEP alumni have led their lives since graduation. The GEP's longstanding detractors will wearily point out that these few anecdotes are hardly reflective of the GEP's success at cultivating a 'strong social conscience' overall, and may not adequately justify the 'lavish educational investment' on thousands of students.

Yes, you're absolutely right - but what is your reply to that? How, indeed, does a few isolated case studies show that the system as a whole has been successful? It is a longstanding argument, which you might find weary, but until a satisfactory response has been formulated by those on the other side of the fence, it is a very valid point. Why bring it up and deride it without providing such a response? What is the point you are making?


Parents would be a clearly unreliable source of objective information, and few parents would be caught writing a less-than-humble Forum letter extolling their child's GEP-inspired virtues in a conservative Singaporean society well known for bashing its elite.

He's right on the first point, but completely wrong on the second. I would have thought that people who write in to the ST Forum actually read the ST Forum. It seems not. Of such letters there have been a couple published within a week, and I'm willing to wager a number more that the august editor of our national broadsheet did not deem fit for publication. There's even one alongside our correspondent's letter today! I can assure our writer, if he has any concerns, that these letters have been considerably less than humble.

Additionally, the paragraph contains a barely-disguised disdain for "conservative Singaporean society", which is apparently "well known for bashing its elite." I don't know, I always thought Singaporean society was for the elite anyway? In any case, our letter writer seems to believe that the elite here are the victims - which is completely ridiculous. I will also not hesitate to point out that the GEP is meant to create socially responsible individuals, and our writer here certainly is not living up to such an ideal - assuming he is who I think he is, and was in fact from the programme himself.

People are obviously going to question a programme that has seemingly provided little benefit for much taxpayer dollars over more than 2 decades of existence. There's a name for that, and it isn't "elite bashing" - it's democracy. It's a demand for accountability. It is something that should be encouraged, and instead of playing the victim, perhaps the elite should show why they deserve to be the elite in the first place. If this letter writer is a member of the said elite, he's certainly not showing it with his poorly conceived, poorly written piece here.


One may suggest that the MOE conduct a written survey of all GEP graduates assessing their 'social conscience' and 'moral values'. Such a study might shed more light on general majority trends among the GEP graduates. However, critics may accuse GEP graduates of being less forthcoming, especially if told that such a survey would eventually quantify the GEP's success, given the 'formidable intellectual prowess' GEP graduates are known for and their fierce loyalty towards the programme.

There is a fine line between anticipating the arguments of the opposition, and setting up strawmen to triumphantly knock down. Our writer, unfortunately, falls squarely on the latter side of the line. The fact is, no such public survey has been conducted. How is the writer so sure that critics will be ready to rip it to shreds? Does he have this little confidence in Singaporean society? Is this the behaviour expected of a socially responsible individual?


The GEP's influences on its graduates may be too complex and varied for a mere survey or centrefold report to measure its triumphs and failures, and political correctness will always limit the extent to which such information is made public. Ms Loh may have to content herself with sourcing for answers on her own. Happily, she will not have to look far, as many GEP graduates will gladly stand out and tell her their story.

The conclusion that wasn't. Looking at the title and beginning of the letter, I expected that the writer would provide us with some sort of alternative towards measuring the results, the good, that the GEP has done for Singapore. But no - apparently his conclusion is that there can be no good way to measure the GEP's effects on society! Rubbish letter, rubbish ending, I suppose. But it also ensures that this letter is utterly pointless. I mean, alright, criticise the means suggested; fair enough. But not to go on to suggest any proper alternatives to what has been derided as unsuitable is just leaving things hanging. It is not a at all good practice in expository writing. It just makes you, the writer, appear to be bitching angstily about a problem without the smarts to suggest something to rectify it. That's not intelligent writing. That's not the kind of standard expected from the most basic expository O Level essays, let alone from somebody gifted.

As for why there has to be a measure of the GEP's effectiveness and success, the answer is simple: money. Taxpayer dollars. The GEP was set up and funded with money from the people of Singapore. It is meant to benefit the people and the Republic of Singapore, so there has to be a time when its results have to be assessed, to examine whether this aim is actually being met. To imply that no assessment need take place because there is no ideal format of assessment is ludicrous. Nothing is perfect or ideal in this world; we just have to find the best way. And apparently our "gifted" writer can't. I don't think that reflects very well on his intelligence.

So, GEP student, allegedly gifted, writes terrible letter to Straits Times. Sadly, that's not a new phenomenon. Perhaps, if we want to continue with the GEP, we should devise new methods of assessment, because the current ones don't seem to be netting us the "gifted" at all.