I... no. First, the age 12 examination, likely a reference to the primary school leaving exam, is not a "needless segregation". It's just another examination,

I... no. First, the age 12 examination, likely a reference to the primary school leaving exam, is not a "needless segregation". It's just another examination, whose results are used like any other examination - to see where you go next as a student. Is your objection towards exams? But that can't be, because right in that paragraph you do advocate students taking tests. That is exactly what is happening, students are taking tests and moving on based on the results of those tests. You can choose whatever specialisation you want to but if your results are bad that's the system working as intended. Further, that exam at age 12 does not lead to attendance at polytechnic for being "dumb". At age 16/17 you take another exam, the GSCE "O" levels, and the results of that let you be placed in a tertiary education institution. It is true that the standards of entry are different, but again, that is the system working as intended. Second, the workerbee anecdote is, on its own, fairly accurate in my experience, but also in my experience this is true for most peoples everywhere. Not everyone can tread new ground with all they do. I think we'd all be better off if we didn't look down on "workerbees". But your following sentences don't parse. The government gives these workerbees "free" money? It's called a scholarship, it's not free, and it does not come from the "government", it comes from whichever organisation that wants to sponsor your further education. Assuming you even qualify, then in return for the money you are given to further your education, you are supposed to serve that organisation that paid for that education using the knowledge you gained from it - this is the "bond". Do you oppose this quid pro quo arrangement? Or is your objection to the "free" money (which isn't really free), in which case, is the Scandinavian model of free university tuition somehow abhorrent to you, too? Or are you somehow denigrating these scholar-middle-managers as you put it? And what are you on about re: Singaporean students binge-ing on drugs and alcohol overseas? You mean the "freeloading government scholar middle management" types you just described? If we're going to use personal anecdotes, mine is that those scholars overseas study like hell and don't squander the opportunity because that's a Stupid Thing To Do. Third, your comment on ethnic Malays. The first sentence is outright false. Singapore's relationship with Malaysia is complicated, but ethnic Malays are as Singaporean as Singaporean Indians and Chinese. If you have specific points to make as to how Malays are less, please do. The rest of your third point is also difficult to parse. The Chinese are... somehow... complicit in stopping Malays from advancing in society... by setting a trap where they get to attend madrasahs and dressing it up as a privilege...? So you're saying that it would be better if the Malays attended regular schools instead, to advance in society? The same regular schools you apparently claim treat Malays as non-citizens? The same regular schools that the vast majority of Malays attend anyway? To be maximally charitable to your comment, it sounds like your issues are with society and not with the education system. As a society we look down on polytechnic diploma holders and students who did badly in their exams and this is a bad thing. I hate that we do not value blue collar jobs and contributions as much as PMEBs, especially when those blue collar jobs and workerbees form the core of society. Such discrimination breeds a divide that, IMO, should not exist. But this is a problem worldwide, not isolated to Singapore. You also seem to be ticked off that Malays are being brought down somehow, and somehow more so than any minority would be, but other than that I really don't understand what you're on about.