No one will have kids that will end up in other people's lunchbox

I put up this article on my FB and questioned why the mainstream media is celebrating the Liangs' efforts to get out of the education arms race in Singapore. People were very puzzled about my position, so I decided a blog article was in order.

You can access this article here.

In summary, the article discusses the Liangs who left Singapore for Thailand and later Malaysia. Their daughter can barely cope with the education system here, so they decided to leave the system. After leaving the system, the Liang kids thrived, and the daughter got the world's highest Maths score under the iGCSE system. The mainstream media views this as vindication of their decision to pursue an alternative lifestyle.

Like most readers, I praise the Liangs for taking a bold move to exit the system here. If the article had merely mentioned the steps they took to leave and how they managed their lifestyle elsewhere, I would have been fine. 

But the Liangs deserved a fair bit of opprobrium for leaving the education arms race only to try to win it in a different environment. So losing under Singapore's regime is bad, but winning in another regime is great. And it's worse that mainstream media is trying to celebrate this fact. 

So the moral of the story is - It's clear that you can take a person out of Singapore, but you can't take Singapore out of the person. 

To elaborate on my point further, let's talk about what a lunchbox is in the context of the Korean blockbuster Squid Game. 

In season, the contestants came out with the concept of a lunchbox. A lunch-box is a loser that gets beaten up and designated as a sacrifice so that everybody else can advance into the next level of the Squid Game. In the show, the contestants drew lots and managed to find a lunchbox, but the person refused to play the sacrificial lamb and committed suicide, leaving the group to hunt for another sacrifice to clear the level. 

This is a potent metaphor for our education system today. 

No parent will voluntarily produce a child to become another child's lunchbox in our education system. I have relatively average kids that I love to death, and I'm broadly aware that my kids are up against kids of assortatively mated couples, like that sweet couple who are both summa cum laude in law school and lovingly texting each other as fellow JLCs (they might still ad this blog)  or the kids of my two professors who fell in love in SMU. It goes without saying that I have a financial arsenal prepared for my kids to survive in the future economy, because, otherwise, I'm not playing this Squid Game, either.

You see, the problem with the Liangs is that they left the Squid Game only to participate in another one where their kids can emerge winners, and our mainstream press wants to celebrate them for it. The Liangs know it's not fun to be the lunchbox, but it's fine to play a game where someone else, in the international iGCSE system, plays the lunchbox instead.

Suppose the newspaper article describes a family that left mainstream education, and now the kids are working in a circus or have successful careers as windsurfers. In that case, it is absolute freedom and a true moral victory against the Singapore system. You escape the arms race into a totally different thing that might not even be a race.

This is why parents should be rightfully upset about the article. To a certain extent, unless our kids are going to be President's Scholars, we volunteered for reasons of our own to keep playing this Squid Game in Singapore and risk letting our kids become the lunch boxes of other kids. I play because it's not that bad to be 50th percentile in Singapore. 

Claiming to stop playing the Squid Game and then proceeding to win it somewhere else is the most incredible hypocrisy — and ultimately the MOST Singaporean thing to do!

I still have a nagging cough after my flu episode, so I'm not producing videos at 3 times a week yet. My latest video summarises the different positions on investment-linked policies.

Enjoy!