343 - 5.10.26 - Peace in our times

Yesterday Oisin and I went to Arab Street. He got some perfume. I got some books. Returning to Singapore has been weird. It is overall weird. I mean I don't know who actually truly enjoys staying here. I suppose I could. If I just switched off my brain and decided that this is a long extended forever holiday. 

The world outside gets worse and worse. America, clearly having lost the war in Iran because of a severe miscalculation, is rumoured to be using 'tactical nukes'. Apparently the rest of the world has no say. I'd like to think that China and Russia will not let this happen. Nor their allies in the Middle East because of fallout. And Iran's reaction. They really have to take the L and they can't or won't.

In general, life is getting tougher for most people. It's alright for me right now. Our needs are not great. As Pa kept telling us, we don't drink, we don't smoke and we don't gamble - so our expenses are low. The one indulgence we have is the car. And that is alright really. 

In the Redhill area, I have been told that there are families with at least 5 children. Minimum. In two-bedroom flats, 10 people live. There is overcrowding. Singapore being a very rich country, there are people who still have it though. It feels like it is now baked in. The ability to move, the social mobility which we once associated with Singapore, is becoming less and less possible. Education, the world over is now gamified. It is a play-to-win model with people who have tremendous amounts of resources - including time, the mother who is often well educated is able to steer the child through the educational maze, and they end up 'doing well' - I meant they are now neurotic mindless robots, but they are very good at passing exams - and the ones which have encountered generational poverty - well they are then left to take their chances - their only hope is getting a teacher who makes a difference. 

I don't know, is it their only hope? Who knows?  My chat with AI today...

what is social mobility like in singapore now as compared to 30 years ago

Broadly, Singapore’s social mobility is still fairly strong, but it is generally seen as less “open” than it was 30 years ago. The biggest shift is that mobility is still there, but it is now more tied to family background, education pathways, and access to networks than people used to think. Compared with the early 1990s, a child’s chances today are more likely to depend on parents’ income, school choices, and ability to pay for enrichment, even though Singapore still has strong upward-mobility channels through education and public housing.

A useful way to think about it:

• Then (around 30 years ago): more people believed Singapore was a highly meritocratic ladder with broad upward movement.
• Now: the ladder still exists, but the rungs are less evenly spaced; there’s more evidence of persistence across generations.

so a child with more resources will stand a better chance at social mobility? but hasn't that always been the case?

Yes — but it’s more true now than many people assumed before.

It has always helped to have money, better schools, and stronger networks. The difference is that those advantages appear to matter more now because the economy and education system reward small early differences more strongly. Enrichment, tuition, better neighborhoods, and parent time all compound over years, so children from wealthier families are often better positioned to move up.

So the short answer is:

• Always true: resources help.
• What’s changed: the gap in opportunity may be wider, and mobility may be less automatic than it felt in the past.

A simple way to put it: Singapore still offers mobility, but “starting line” matters more than it used to.

is this because in the past education was just one of the determining factors for social mobility? now it is the overriding one?

Partly, yes — education has become more central, but it’s not the only reason.

A good way to frame it is:

• In the past: social mobility depended more on a mix of education, manual/industrial jobs, seniority, unionized wage growth, and broad economic expansion.
• Now: education matters more because many of the best-paying jobs are credential-driven, and degrees, school tiers, and early academic tracking shape life chances more strongly.

But education isn’t the whole story. Social mobility today is also affected by:

• family resources for tuition and enrichment
• networks and social capital
• housing location
• job market polarization between high-skill and lower-skill work

So I’d say education is closer to the main gatekeeper now, but not an absolute override. It’s more like the biggest filter in the system, not the only one.

so if a child from a low income, poor social network background, goes to a local school, but has a very good teacher, they could manage to improve their economic standing

Yes — absolutely. A strong teacher can make a real difference, especially for a child who has less support at home.

A very good teacher can help by:

• spotting strengths early
• building confidence and motivation
• closing gaps in reading, math, or exam skills
• giving structure and discipline
• encouraging ambition and showing pathways the child may not know about

That said, one great teacher usually isn’t enough on its own. The best outcomes usually come when the child also has some combination of:

• a stable home environment
• consistent school support
• access to tutoring or mentoring
• encouragement over many years

So the honest answer is: yes, a child in that situation can improve their economic standing, and a good teacher can be one of the biggest turning points. But mobility is usually built by a chain of supports, not one person alone.

what will happen if this trend is not arrested or no intervention takes place?

If it keeps going unchecked, social mobility will likely become more hereditary: children of affluent families will keep pulling ahead, while children from poorer families will find it harder to catch up.

That usually leads to:

• more inequality across generations
• less trust in meritocracy
• weaker social cohesion
• greater resentment among people who feel the system is stacked
• wasted talent, because some capable children won’t get the support they need

Over time, you can also get a self-reinforcing loop:

1. wealthy families invest more in education and networks
2. their children get better jobs and incomes
3. they pass those advantages on
4. the gap widens again

The practical risk is not just poverty persisting, but society becoming more rigid — where birth background matters more than effort or ability.

Right...time for me to stop this. I did find out that from thirty years ago the Singaporean population grew by 570,000. And that in the 1990s, Singaporeans made up 79% of the population and now it makes up 46%. So, one in two people are not Singaporean any more. Well I can't go for my run now because I've soent the last hour fucking about on this here thing here. Right. Gotta go now.