Low Income Youths’ Perceptions of Meritocracy

1. Seah Kai Enⁱ
2. Yap Keat Mien Giselleⁱ
3. Chin Hui Wenⁱⁱ

• ⁱJunior College 1, Eunoia Junior College
• ⁱⁱS R Nathan School of Human Development, Singapore University of Social Sciences

Abstract

Meritocracy is foundational to Singapore’s high ranking education system. However, it has its limitations. Unconditional support for meritocratic systems can make it challenging to discuss structural inequities, depriving students from families reporting lower incomes. Understanding the perspectives of students from families reporting lower incomes on meritocracy can enable educators and policy makers to respond to their needs. Thus, this study explores how youths from low socioeconomic backgrounds in Singapore perceive meritocracy and define success within the education system. A mixed-methods approach was employed for this research. Data was collected in two phases. In Phase 1, data were gathered through a survey with 32 respondents, investigating their perceptions of fairness, barriers, and motivation. In Phase 2, data were generated through interviews with four participants. This provided deeper insight into participants’ lived experiences. All participants were students aged 17 to 19, from junior colleges, polytechnics, and institutes of technical education (ITEs). Survey data were summarized using descriptive statistics while interview data were analysed thematically.

In response to the research question, four findings emerged:

• striving to “move up” coexists with emotional fatigue;
• redefining success beyond academics;
• recognising but rarely challenging inequality; and
• the sense of belonging as a “buffer”.

The wider implications of this study are that policies supporting lower income students should focus less on motivational messaging — which may reinforce the self-blame cycle — and more on systemic stress reduction and the provision of high-quality social capital networks.

Introduction

Defining Meritocracy in Singapore’s Context

Singapore’s sustained emphasis on meritocracy where success is based on demonstrated “merits” like performance and credentials is fundamental to its national ethos and economic success. Historically, after separation from Malaysia in 1965, Singapore needed a principle to unify its multiracial population¹. Meritocracy achieved this by ensuring impartiality and rewarding every individual’s contribution, actively rejecting race-based privilege. This diverse context necessitated a strong commitment to equal opportunities in all aspects of life.

The most critical pathway for progress in Singapore’s meritocratic ideal is education. Lacking natural resources, the early government viewed the development of its people as crucial for survival², a belief encapsulated by the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s strategy to “develop Singapore’s only available natural resource, its people”³. This focus has successfully generated a skilled workforce and competitive market that attracts foreign investment.⁴ Building social cohesion and a knowledge-driven economy on this principle led to strong, continued public trust in the system.

However, the success of meritocracy has inadvertently transformed inequality. In a nation where academic achievement is paramount, the system potentially stigmatizes lower-status individuals (i.e., those with limited income or formal credentials), leading them to view their disadvantage as “deserved”. The unconditional support for meritocracy makes it difficult to discuss structural inequality, often causing disadvantaged individuals to reject the ideal as a justification for their status⁵.

Coping Mechanism that the Disadvantaged Adopt

According to Social Identity Theory (SIT), individuals with low socio-economic status (SES) cope with negative social identity under meritocracy through three primary strategies. They may pursue

1. individualistic social mobility (limited by economic factors);
2. employ social creativity (redefining success by highlighting values other than high income); or
3. engage in social action (collective efforts like protests or subtle expressions of disapproval).

Despite using these strategies to improve self-perception, research shows that low-SES individuals remain pressured to internalize feelings of inadequacy, often personalizing failure rather than attributing it to collective systemic shortcomings. Addressing this demands examination of the very institutions that serve as pathways of progression, and differences in perception of the “losers” of meritocracy and how they navigate these deeply entrenched ideals that might be working against them in Singapore.

Differing Perceptions and its Impact in their Lives

Causal Beliefs, SES, and Career Attainment

Research consistently demonstrates that an individual’s beliefs about the causes of success and failure serve as a critical psychological mechanism in the reproduction of socioeconomic inequality across generations.⁶ These causal attributions differ significantly by SES and associate powerfully with career attainment in early adulthood.

SES and Attributions of Control

The literature highlights significant socioeconomic disparities in how youth perceive the causes of achievement. Youth from higher-SES backgrounds are less likely to attribute success to factors like luck or systemic barriers, instead emphasizing personal effort and ability⁶. This internal focus is strongly correlated with a broader psychological trait: a robust sense of personal control⁷. Individuals with higher SES tend to experience more choices and opportunities, leading them to adopt more internal, changeable, and controllable attributions for cause⁸. In contrast, lower-SES youth are significantly more likely to believe that success results from external forces^6,7. This external attributional style reflects their frequent exposure to structural obstacles and financial uncertainty, validating the belief systems of their parents, who often perceive less personal control over their life outcomes⁶.

Transmission and Consequence for Attainment

High-SES parents typically hold higher educational expectations for their children, fostering the internal, high-achieving mindset that encourages higher goal engagement and more optimistic career trajectories⁶. Crucially, external-oriented beliefs have tangible negative effects on later career attainment. These beliefs were associated with lower income, job prestige, and autonomy up to age 28⁶, contributing to slower income growth over time⁶.

Two psychological mechanisms help explain this outcome:

1. Self-Efficacy: Attributing success to uncontrollable external factors is correlated with lower academic self-efficacy⁹. This can translate into less persistence and lower effort engagement.

2. Career Preferences: Beyond attributions, SES disparities also manifest in career preferences. Lower-SES individuals are often more risk-averse, prioritizing job security over promotion potential or earning growth, which are preferences that independently predict lower future earnings and job prestige¹⁰.

Thus, causal beliefs, especially external ones, function as a key psychological mechanism by which SES-based inequality is reproduced⁶. Interestingly, while meritocratic beliefs are common across all SES groups, they were not significantly predictive of career success, nor mediate the effects of SES on outcomes⁶. This suggests that simply endorsing meritocracy is insufficient; the actual causal explanation one applies to success and failure is the powerful predictor. By understanding how disadvantaged youths in Singapore view meritocracy, we can better address structural inequities and shape their hopes and actions towards their future.

Exploring the Gaps in Singapore’s Efforts

Singapore’s government supports low-income youths within a meritocratic system by reducing financial and social barriers to education through targeted support at every stage of development.

• Family stability: Programmes like ComLink+ and IFMIS strengthen household finances and protect children’s schooling during crises.

• Early childhood: KiFAS and ECDA subsidies make preschool affordable, ensuring equal developmental starts.

• Schooling years: The MOE Financial Assistance Scheme and Independent School Bursary cover fees, meals, and transport for students in need, while the School Pocket Money Fund supports daily expenses.

• Tertiary level: Grants such as NTUC Care Fund (Youth Enable) and the SIM Impact Fund provide study stipends and tuition subsidies to sustain higher education access.

Together, these initiatives aim to level the playing field so that solely effort determines opportunity and success. However, the perception of meritocracy among low-income youths may not align neatly with policy intentions. Studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that low-income youths still face difficulties, such as social capital barriers, psychological and emotional impacts of poverty.

The study hence seeks to understand youths lived perceptions to assess whether these measures effectively uphold meritocracy in practice. This research was framed by the overarching question: How do low income youths perceive meritocracy in Singapore?

It was guided by four sub-questions:

1. How do low-income youths define success?
2. What barriers do low income youths face?
3. How do perceptions of fairness impact their emotional well-being and motivation?
4. How do they react according to their perception of meritocracy?

Methods

This study employed a mixed-methods design comprising quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. The survey was distributed via Google Forms. Participants were selected through convenience and snowball sampling. Invitations to participate were shared on social media platforms such as Telegram and Instagram. The qualitative component consisted of semi-structured interviews designed to provide deeper insights into youths’ lived experiences under Singapore’s meritocratic system. To ensure anonymity, the four participants in the qualitative component were assigned the pseudonyms Ying, Jing, Nat, and Fang.

Both components targeted youths aged 17 to 19 enrolled in junior colleges (JC), institutes of technical education (ITE), or polytechnics, whose average household income per capita was below SGD $2,000.

Phase 1

The survey comprised six Likert-scale items (from strongly agree to strongly disagree) capturing participants’ views on success, fairness, opportunity, and motivation. In total, 32 responses were collected. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics (percentages and averages) to identify broad trends in youths’ perceptions of meritocracy.

Phase 2

The qualitative phase involved four semi-structured interviews lasting 30–45 minutes each. One interview was conducted in person, while three were held online via Google Meet. All interviews were audio-recorded with consent and later transcribed verbatim for analysis.

A thematic analysis approach¹¹ was used to identify recurring patterns across participants’ experiences. This process included repeated reading of transcripts, open coding of meaningful phrases, and clustering of related ideas into overarching themes such as success beliefs, fairness perceptions, barriers, and coping strategies.

Ethical Considerations

All participants were informed of the study’s purpose and procedures before participation. Voluntary consent was obtained from both youths and parents for participants younger than 18 years old. Participants were reminded of their right to skip questions or withdraw at any time without penalty.

To ensure ethical integrity, interview transcripts were anonymised, and identifying information was stored separately from response data. All files were kept on password-protected laptops accessible only to the research team (comprising the two authors). Participants also received a plain-language summary of their responses to verify interpretation accuracy (for member checking). Throughout data collection, neutral and non-leading language was used to minimise response bias and ensure participant comfort.

Results

Phase 1

A total of 32 valid responses were obtained after excluding entries marked “I decline.” The sample primarily comprised 17-year-old participants (≈70%), with a smaller proportion aged 18 to 19. For educational background, junior college (JC) students formed the majority, followed by polytechnic respondents, and one participant each from the ITE and non-tertiary categories.

When asked about access to enrichment resources, 16.1% of respondents reported receiving private tuition in at least one subject, 3.2% had participated in paid online courses, and 64.5% indicated having no additional academic support. These suggest a substantial degree of educational resource inequality within the sample, consistent with socioeconomic disparities among lower-income youths.

Success Beliefs

A clear majority of students (approximately 62.6%) agreed that academic achievement remains a key indicator of success. However, the sizable dissenting minority (about 25.1%) suggests growing ambivalence toward a purely grades-centred definition (see Figure 2). It indicates that while academic outcomes continue to hold significant cultural weight, students are increasingly open to recognising alternative pathways to success.

Figure 3 drew the strongest endorsement among the three items, with 78.1% of respondents expressing agreement and virtually no disagreement (3.1%). This pattern highlights that students attach substantial value to moral and prosocial dimensions of success, suggesting that notions of success are shifting beyond individual achievement to include relational and community-oriented outcomes.

Figure 4 saw strong agreement (71.9%), with nearly half of all respondents selecting “Strongly Agree” (46.9%). Minimal disagreement (12.6%) indicates that students largely reject the belief that success is contingent on following an elite academic trajectory, reflecting a broader social narrative around diversified pathways and a more flexible understanding of merit.

Opportunity & Fairness

A clear majority of students (59.4%) agreed that financial resources increase access to opportunities, while about one in five respondents disagreed. This indicates that although students recognise the influence of economic privilege, a non-trivial minority remains unconvinced.

71.9% of respondents expressed agreement, reflecting moderate trust in meritocratic reward structures. However, the existence of a small dissenting minority (12.6%) indicates that students do not perceive all effort-based outcomes as entirely objective. This suggests a conditional acceptance of meritocracy. Students broadly believe in the ideal but acknowledge that it may not hold universally.

Agreement was nearly unanimous (96.9%) in Figure 7 and no respondents disagreed. The dominance of “Strongly Agree” (62.5%) highlights students’ firm recognition of social capital as a decisive factor in securing opportunities. This overwhelming consensus positions social networks as a perceived structural advantage that operates alongside, or even overrides, academic merit.

A similarly strong trend appears in Figure 8, where 87.6% of students agreed. The minimal dissent (6.3%) reflects widespread acknowledgement of structural inequalities or external constraints affecting educational trajectories. This indicates that students are highly aware that personal effort alone may be insufficient to overcome systemic challenges.

Barriers & Resources

A slight majority of students (53.2%) indicated that they worry about financial matters alongside their academic responsibilities, with over one-third selecting “Strongly Agree.” However, a sizable dissenting minority (34.4%) explicitly disagreed with this statement. It shows a stratified student population in which some individuals face material stressors that intersect with academic life, while others do not worry to the same extent.

In Figure 10, 59.4% of students disagree that they had to reject opportunities because of caregiving or work commitments. Nonetheless, more than one-third (34.4%) did agree, indicating that while most students are not constrained by these responsibilities, a significant minority faces real limitations in pursuing additional academic or co-curricular opportunities.

Motivation & Well-being

A strong majority of students (75.0%) agreed that effort is central to achieving good outcomes following setbacks. Although a minority (15.6%) expressed dissent, the prevailing pattern reflects a clear endorsement of a growth-mindset orientation. Students predominantly believe that personal effort plays a meaningful role in determining academic success, reinforcing internalised meritocratic ideals.

Endorsement is strong in Figure 12: 87.5% of respondents agreed that they feel stressed trying to keep up with school demands. Disagreement was minimal (6.2%). This overwhelming trend indicates that competitive academic pressure is a widespread and normalised experience among students and may place psychological strain on them.

While 40.6% agreed that reflecting on fairness discourages them, the modal response category was neutrality (28.1%). This indicates that although concerns about fairness and structural inequality have a demotivating effect for some students, this reaction is not universally experienced. Instead, perceptions of fairness appear to affect students unevenly.

Coping & Identity Strategies

A clear majority (71.9%) agreed that they believe they can overcome difficulties through effort, with “Agree” being the dominant response. Roughly one-fifth of students chose the neutral option, indicating some uncertainty but not outright disagreement. This pattern reflects a broad endorsement of effort-based coping strategies: students tend to view hard work as a viable means of improving their circumstances.

In Figure 15, 68.8% agreed that success can be reinterpreted in personally meaningful ways. Nonetheless, the presence of a dissenting minority (18.7%) shows that this flexibility is not universal. The overall trend suggests that students generally possess a resilient mindset that allows them to refocus on alternative forms of achievement when traditional markers feel unattainable.

Figure 16 was split almost evenly between agreement and disagreement (37.5% each), with no dominant stance emerging. This divided pattern indicates uncertainty and ambivalence around expressing agency in the face of structural or interpersonal unfairness. While some students feel empowered to speak up, an equally large group is hesitant or unwilling to do so.

Phase 2

This section analyzes semi-structured interviews with four low-SES youths in Singapore. To understand how they navigate meritocracy, their responses were coded deductively and categorized into four themes: success beliefs, fairness perceptions, barriers, and coping strategies.

Success beliefs encompassed youth definitions of achievement through traditional academic markers or broader values like well-being and character. Fairness perceptions related to their views on institutional equity, transparency, and the persistence of background advantages. Barriers encompassed material and emotional obstacles, while coping strategies detailed how students manage pressure, whether through perseverance, redefining success, or self-protection.

Triangulating the survey results with interview themes, four findings emerged responding to the overarching research question.

Finding 1: The strive to “move up” coexists with emotional fatigue

Participants emphasized hard work and discipline as moral obligations, reflecting internal attributional styles where success stems from personal effort and ability20. Fang, who lacked tuition support noted that children must “rely on themselves to do well if not well off,” while Ying observed that bursaries “help level the field.” These beliefs illustrate internalized meritocratic ideals where perseverance ensures success. However, this mindset creates a psychological paradox because the same belief that motivates effort also induces emotional fatigue and self-blame. Students reported feeling guilty or frustrated despite working hard, showing that meritocracy is both motivational and burdensome. Survey results support this finding: 87.5% of respondents face significant stress keeping up, and 40.6% feel discouraged about fairness.

Finding 2: Redefining success beyond academics

Participants protected their self-worth by broadening definitions of success—a shift mirrored by 68.8% of survey respondents who defined achievement independent of grades or wealth. Jing prioritized “doing what I love” and “giving back,” while Ying focused on friendship and contentment over financial gain. Nat similarly transitioned from prioritizing income to balancing passion with stability. Despite this, money retained symbolic weight: 53.2% of respondents worry about financial impacts on school choices. For participants like Ying, money represents “peace of mind” and dignity rather than luxury. Ultimately, redefining success allows youths to maintain optimism while navigating economic constraints.

Finding 3: Recognising but rarely challenging inequality

Participants acknowledged systemic unfairness but rarely engaged in active resistance. Nat noted that “connections play a huge part” in accessing opportunities, while Fang observed that “kids with tuition have an advantage.” Survey data supports this: 96.9% believe “knowing the right people” matters, and 59.4% agree wealth grants more opportunities. Despite recognizing inequality, most adapted rather than protested—demonstrating limited collective contestation. A recurring nuance is the gap between procedural fairness and outcome fairness: students found school processes fair due to “clear criteria” but doubted the equality of initial resources and networks.

Finding 4: The sense of belonging as a “buffer”

Relationships with peers and mentors emerged as crucial sources of motivation and self-esteem. Ying credited friends for helping her “feel secure” despite being teased for being poor, while Fang found encouragement from classmates who offered free tutoring. Jing similarly noted that “friends and a moderately exciting life” helped sustain her academic motivation.

Discussion

The Psychological Toll and Strategic Adaptation within Singapore’s Meritocracy

Singapore’s meritocratic system, while designed to foster mobility based on effort, imposes a significant and complex psychological burden on low-SES youth, leading to a necessity for both internal attributional endurance and strategic social adaptation. The core findings suggest a pattern where systemic limitations are internalized as personal failures yet simultaneously mitigated through relational support and the tactical redefinition of success.

The Paradoxical Burden of Internalized Meritocracy

Participants’ stress and fatigue (e.g., Fang, Ying) contradict their deep commitment to effort—a psychological paradox that validates Teo’s (2019) claim: Singapore’s meritocracy moralizes productivity, reframing structural barriers as personal moral duties¹². For low-SES youth, internalizing effort serves a dual function: it fosters self-efficacy while acting as a devastating psychological burden⁶. Consequently, the perceived cost of merit often outweighs its benefits, leading to exhaustion and quiet acceptance. This underscores a critical psychological toll: within this framework, sustained motivation becomes inextricably linked to self-blame.

Strategic Adaptation: Redefining Success and Compliance

In response to the emotional exhaustion and the overwhelming nature of systemic barriers, participants employ two primary forms of strategic adaptation.

To manage emotional exhaustion and systemic barriers, participants adopt two primary strategic adaptations. First, redefining success — seen in Jing, Ying, and Nat — aligns with Social Identity Theory’s (SIT) social creativity strategy. To protect self-worth against unfavorable comparisons with high-SES peers, students broaden success to include happiness, relationships, and moral fulfillment: metrics less dependent on structural advantage. Since 53.2% of respondents worry about finances, this reframing is a pragmatic adaptation for dignity rather than an idealistic rejection of stability — a necessity for emotional survival under a high-pressure system.

Second, limited collective contestation — despite 96.9% acknowledging the importance of “connections” — suggests strategic compliance rather than apathy. This response is reinforced by the institutional environment: a focus on procedural fairness (clear criteria) over outcome fairness (unequal resources) echoes Chua’s (2017) observation that process transparency maintains systemic legitimacy¹³. “Quiet acceptance” illustrates how a depoliticized environment fosters non-confrontational coping. Ultimately, perceived procedural fairness legitimizes unequal outcomes, limiting the agency of youth to challenge systemic barriers.

Social Capital as the Remaining Source of Agency

When structural change feels unattainable—as evidenced by strategic compliance—social capital becomes the primary source of perceived agency. Relationships with peers and mentors function as emotional equalizers and informal safety nets, echoing theories of Social Capital where relational support mitigates structural disadvantage by fostering connection and confidence¹⁴. Qualitative accounts from Ying, Fang, and Jing demonstrate that these networks restore dignity and sustain academic motivation. Ultimately, these supportive networks act as a buffer against the psychological burden of meritocracy, providing an accessible, concrete source of hope.

Implications and Future Research

Policy Implications

The findings highlight the urgent need for policy interventions that address the psychological toll of meritocracy, not just the material outcomes. Current policy largely focuses on access (procedural fairness), but the study reveals the need for interventions that validate and mitigate the high stress associated with the expectation of effort among low-SES groups. Specifically, institutional support should focus less on motivational messaging—which may reinforce the self-blame cycle—and more on systemic stress reduction and the provision of high-quality social capital networks (e.g., expanded mentorship, accessible emotional guidance).

Theoretical Contributions

This study contributes to the literature on meritocracy by demonstrating its paradoxical psychological effect. It shifts the focus from structural critique alone to the mechanism of internalized structural inequality — showing how effort, the very cornerstone of the ideology, becomes the source of emotional distress. Furthermore, it validates the use of social creativity and strategic compliance as necessary adaptive tools for maintaining self-worth in a highly competitive, unequal system.

Future Research Directions

Future research should empirically measure the long-term mental health outcomes of low-SES youth who adopt the social creativity strategy versus those who do not, to quantify its protective psychological effect. Furthermore, longitudinal studies are needed to track whether the early adoption of strategic compliance translates into reduced political or social engagement in adulthood, providing a clearer picture of how institutional depoliticisation impacts civic participation over time.

Limitations in Research

Sample Size and Representation

The study’s quantitative sample (N = 32) and qualitative sample (four interviews) are small and drawn through convenience and snowball sampling. This resulted in an overrepresentation of JC students and may not accurately reflect the broader population of low-income youths across ITE and polytechnic pathways.

Social Desirability Bias, Researcher-Participant Power Dynamics

Although interviews were conducted by student researchers close in age to participants, subtle power dynamics may still have influenced how openly youths discussed sensitive issues such as inequality, family struggles, or school experiences. Participants may have moderated their responses to avoid judgement or discomfort. These interpersonal dynamics may have shaped the narratives shared and constrained the expression of more critical or emotionally vulnerable perspectives.

Limited Consideration of Cultural or Family Contexts

Although family SES was central, the study did not systematically measure other contextual variables (e.g., parental education, family stress, neighbourhood factors) that shape youths’ perceptions of fairness and opportunity.

Conclusion

The findings suggest that while Singapore’s meritocratic system continues to inspire effort and ambition, it also generates emotional strain and subtle feelings of inequity among low-SES youths. These students maintain faith in personal effort but quietly redefine success around happiness, relationships, and moral worth to preserve dignity. Their resilience is sustained more by social belonging and empathy than by structural equality alone. For Singapore to uphold its vision of inclusive meritocracy, educational and social policies should therefore move beyond procedural fairness to address emotional well-being, mentorship access, and relational support — ensuring that every youth not only has an equal chance to succeed, but also feels equally valued within the system.

Interview Transcripts

Interviewee 1: Ying

Opening (5 minutes)

Giselle: Share one thing you’re proud of from school, from school or outside school? This can just be like one thing.

Ying: (laughs nervously) nothing actually.

Giselle, prompting: You can also talk about hockey as one thing, technically.

Ying: I mean, I guess I am proud of my hockey to a certain extent, like because I like doing it, but whether I’m good at it is another problem. Yeah, I’ve been there for like, five years. But like, there’s still like, like mistakes, you know, but it’s like fun, and it’s like, it’s like, my passion, I think. I would also say I used to be proud of math, but now it’s like, downhill.

Defining Success (10–15 minutes)

Giselle: What does being successful mean to you? Like what images come to mind.

Ying: being rich, like a comfortable life, yap and a happy life, like you don’t have to worry about, like, money or like, any sort of weird problems that comes out in your life.

Giselle: So like, do you think money solves everything?

Ying: I’ll be very real. I don’t think you can survive this world without money. Yeah, I don’t think it solves all the problems. But, like, like, in this world, like, right now, it will solve, like, some of my problems.

Giselle: So being successful to you is like you don’t have to worry about a comfortable life, and money is an indirect way of getting to that mean.

Ying: yeah, something like that

Giselle: Who taught you those ideas? Like was it just yourself or your teachers or parents?

Ying: Yeah, I feel like it’s like, like, from the environment I live in, it’s like, like, when I was young, is, I guess it’s not like, I’m poor, poor, but like, there’s like, some, sometimes we will have like, some difficulties with like money and like, we always, like my family, always need to go for like bursaries, like, every single year, and they don’t get so tired, because you always have To go to the GO (general office) and sign the form and everything, yeah, so like, like, it just tells you that, like, Oh, if you don’t have enough money, sometimes you have to, like, work hard and, like, if I want to live a relaxing life. Like, you need the money to reach that sort of level.

Giselle: So would you say, like, because you say that your life is kind of inconvenient for you, I guess is there, like, a sort of, I say a comparison? You know, when you see, like, normal people that you make a comparison, you draw a comparison.

Ying: I actually don’t really care about other people. Like, okay, okay, you got it? Like, I don’t think that. I don’t know what it’s like, sometimes I do feel a bit like, if they say they are in a condo, like, wow, okay. But like, it’s, like, it’s not my business to care about other people, I should care about myself.

Giselle: Have you an idea of success? Like change over time, and like what influenced that change? Or is it always the money?

Ying: When I was young, when I was young, I was a very carefree person. So I didn’t even think about the future or what success would be. I don’t know. I like being exposed to social media celebrities these days and they have a lot of money. Like, I want to be like them, you know. Like, I can be better, yeah. I have an aunt, who’s like, rich, and then, she doesn’t need work. Like, just think about it. She doesn’t even work at all. So my friend last time in like, secondary school, she would like, she’s beside me. She always says, she’ll be a tai tai.

Ying: I don’t think it’s really been a change, because it’s like, yap, I don’t know how to say, like, I really don’t think about these tough things, like, I’m like, Yeah, I’m just living my life. Maybe I’ll think, like, oh, I want to bring my family, like, my mom to, like, overseas next time. Yeah, and it’s still, like, something I would want to do now, like, when I’m, like, 30 years old. I told my mom I’ll bring her somewhere when I got money when I’m 30, yeah, but like, it’s, I don’t know. I don’t know. I didn’t think that’s considered success. Is that considered success? Once I’m an adult, I’ll just take care of my mom. My sister will find her own family, and there’s nobody else to take care of so it’s just my mom. Yeah, so it’s like, like, just like the two of us when we just live a comfortable life, no husband, no nothing.

Opportunities & Fairness (15 minutes)

Giselle: Is there ever a time where you felt that a process was fair or unfair? Like lets say, leadership, selection, awards, streaming, subject bending, or CCA trials.

Ying: No, like, they don’t care about your, like, your financial situation. Yeah, I don’t think so. Like, like, if we talk about CCA trials, the only thing they say that, like, they couldn’t do was, like they couldn’t, like, give me free, free equipment, like hockey stick, anything, they’re expensive, yeah. So, like, there was a problem. But then, because of that, they also, like the school, like in St Nicks, they let me apply for this, like, sports scholarship for poor people, yeah, like, some like, bitter thing, scholarship, do you get it? Yeah, I got it. Think about free sticks. Like, no, I have free money to buy sticks. How much money was it? Like, $400 you know, it’s $2,000

Ying: But Oh, I don’t really lack opportunities, but like my sister, like she failed GP, now she’s in uni. Oh, but she went to private uni because she failed, yeah, but private uni is, like, expensive. Oh, yeah. So like, I think she used up all, like, all her savings, like my mom saves money for all of us, like two of us, so, like, she had to use up all the savings, and then she worked, like part time when studying. Then she used up the money also. Then she prayed to beg our father to give us some money

Giselle: How is she now? Is she still struggling financially?

Ying: Because she’s like, Well, yeah, like, she always complains. But like, she will have, she always says, like, Oh, she has to study and work. Sometimes she says very tired.

Giselle: If you could redesign what thing in school, what would you do?

Ying: Honestly I don’t know. But last time in primary school they used to have those coupons and everyone always was like, why do you have those. And it’s quite awkward to explain myself. But now it’s a lot better as they give us funds in our ez link card, so it’s less obvious.

Barriers & Supports (10–15 minutes)

Giselle: What gets in the way when you try to do well, like, yeah? Like it money, time, caregiving, travel, devices and health. You can talk about.

Ying: I think it’s just my own attitude. Like, there’s a whole different thing, like, I don’t have to take care of anybody. Like, yeah, I’m like, I guess I’m quite well off in that sense. So I have no, like, family duties.

Kai En: Do you think you’d do better in another education system?

Ying: Obviously. America’s math is so much easier. But like you need money to go overseas. It’s quite expensive to get money. If local Uni, my mum says I can pay because I got CPF. And my sister needs to pay her third year at private uni. So like even if got money i wouldn’t have it. But if money wasn’t a problem ya i want to go overseas. I like to be independent and experience other culture. Also Australia Uni have hockey but Singapore doesn’t.

Giselle: What helps you the most in terms of like financial constraints. Like teachers, programmes, scholarships or bursaries?

Ying: I think bursaries helped a lot, okay, like, financial assistance. It definitely helped with FAS because they give you, like, last time they give you free uniforms and books. So all the textbooks were all free, and its good because they’re quite expensive.

Emotional Impact & Coping (10–15 minutes)

Giselle: How does ideas like merit and comparisons affect how you feel day to day?

Ying: I’m pretty sure that I had some like, like, people like, say that I’m poor before, but I forgot in primary school, like, primary school, people are very childish, so they will talk about these, start things. I think that time maybe I’ll feel like, sad, like, if people talk about, like, my financial situation, so I don’t talk about, last time, I would never talk about, like, my financial situation. Yeah, now it’s just like, I don’t care, like, like, I don’t have anything to lose. Yeah, like, it’s, it’s like, nothing that we’re shameful about, I guess.

Giselle: What made you feel more secure now, or helped you not be affected by it?

Ying: I think it’s friends, like, I had friends who, like, didn’t care about it. Like, like, I used to go to Ijv (a childcare service). So, like, there’ll be like, people, I mean, they’re quite rich, but like, we all had like to I. It’s like, I guess our parents are all very busy, so they couldn’t pick us up. So my friends and I were just like, like, I guess, like, no parents, like, that’s just like, it makes it normal for me, like, and they don’t care about my money or anything, I don’t know, just play. Yeah, it’s just secondary school. Then, like, I have a friend, like, a very close one. Then, she would say, sometimes, oh, let’s go out. Let’s say I have no money. She’ll say, oh, I pay for you. Like, the sad thing, like, it’s very it became, like, quite normal, yeah, we just joke about it. And, like, after that, it just started. I just started joking about my like, my dad, like, I don’t know, I think I told Caleb (classmate) that my grandma died, like this year, and then I was very happy about it, because this is my dad’s grandma.

For context, her father cheated on her mother and they are divorced.

Card Sort (10 minutes)

Top is most valued, bottom is least valued.

What Ying values when she thinks of success:

• money
• mental health
• grades
• stable job
• helping family
• free time
• awards
• Leadership

What Ying thinks society / her school values when it comes to success:

• money
• grades
• leadership
• awards
• stable job
• free time
• helping family
• mental health

Closing (5 minutes)

Giselle: If the minister of education asks you one thing to make things fairer, what would you say?

Ying: Maybe can make it easier to get mentorship opportunities? And give me life knowledge so I know how to find a good job. But I’ll also tell him I like the CDC vouchers.

Interviewee 2: Fang

Opening (5 minutes)

Giselle: Okay, so share one thing you’re proud of from school or outside school. It can be anything like something you did or achieved.

Fang: Hmm… I think… probably my grades? Yeah, like, I’m kinda proud of my grades in school. And also, um, my leadership roles, I guess. ’Cause like, they helped me grow more holistically, you know? Not just, like, study and get results, but like, as a person also.

Giselle: Mmm, so you feel like those roles made you grow as a person?

Fang: Yeah, yeah. It’s not just about being smart, right? Like, when you do those things, you learn how to talk to people, plan stuff, and like, handle problems. It’s more complete, I guess.

Defining Success (10–15 mins)

Giselle: Yeah, that makes sense. So, what does “being successful” mean to you? Like, what kinda image comes to mind?

Fang: I think, like, doing well in school is one. And also being, like, financially stable, like, not having to worry about money all the time. And also, like, having a good social life, having people you can rely on, you know? I think that’s part of success too.

Giselle: And who or what taught you those ideas?

Fang: Uh, I think… partly my family, and like, the media also. ’Cause like, when you see articles about scholars, they always show people who, like, not only get good grades but also have a vibrant social life, and like, do sports or something. So yeah, I kinda grew up thinking that’s, like, what success should look like.

Giselle: Has your idea of success changed over time?

Fang: Yeah, like, a bit. I used to think success was, like, just about money like, financial. But I think now it’s more than that. You can be successful, like, outside of academics too. So, real success to me is, like, finding a balance between those things, like money and, um, other stuff.

Giselle: That’s a nice way to see it. What about non-academic things, like kindness or health?

Fang: Oh, yeah. I was always taught to be kind. Like, my parents always said people who have good character are the real ones who succeed. So yeah, I think being kind is also, like, part of being successful.

Opportunities & Fairness (15 minutes)

Giselle: Tell me about a time when you felt something was fair or unfair — like leadership selections, awards, streaming, or CCA trials.

Fang: Hmm, okay… so like, in JC, when they were choosing the new CCA leaders, right — they only asked the seniors to decide. And like, the person who was close to the senior got the president role. But honestly, her leadership skills were, like, not that great. [laughs] So yeah, it felt kinda unfair.

Giselle: Right, so it felt like it was based more on connections than ability?

Fang: Yeah, yeah, exactly. It’s like, it wasn’t about performance. More like who you knew.

Giselle: What about other parts of school — like subject banding or awards?

Fang: Subject banding, I think, is quite fair. ’Cause it’s just based on marks, and, like, there aren’t really other factors. But I think there are always, like, behind-the-scenes things that affect people, you know?

Giselle: Like what?

Fang: Like family issues or your social circle. I had this one friend — her parents were, like, really abusive, and the day before a major paper she was super upset. So obviously, she didn’t do well. And that’s not her fault, right? So yeah, even though the system is, like, “fair” on paper, it doesn’t account for stuff like that.

Giselle: That’s a really good point. So would you say you still think the system is fair overall?

Fang: I mean… not totally. Like, meritocracy isn’t just about money. Family circumstances and all that can really, like, set people back. So, yeah, I think it’s not equal from the start.

Giselle: If you could redesign one thing in school to make it fairer, what would you change?

Fang: Hmm… honestly, I don’t really know. ’Cause like, I feel like even if you change one process, it won’t really fix the bigger system, you know? Like, sometimes things are just, like, one-off situations — not big systemic issues.

Barriers & Supports (10–15 minutes)

Giselle: What gets in the way when you try to do well? Like, is it money, time, caregiving, travel, health?

Fang: Definitely money. Like, almost everyone has tuition, and it really helps. But I don’t have tuition, so like, I just gotta rely on myself. If you’re not well-off, you really have to, like, work extra hard just to keep up.

Giselle: Do you get any help from, like, bursaries or subsidies?

Fang: Yeah, yeah, I do. FAS helps a lot — they give, like, free uniforms and free printing. And I’ve got friends who, like, tutor me after school, so that’s really helpful too.

Giselle: What about things like transport or devices?

Fang: Oh, transport, yeah. They, like, used to give support for that, but not in JC anymore. So now it’s just my own money.

Emotional Impact & Coping (10–15 mins)

Giselle: How do ideas about merit and comparison affect how you feel day to day?

Fang: Uh, not really every day, but like, sometimes I’ll compare myself, you know? Like, “oh my god, she’s doing so well, what about me?” [laughs] It’s not jealousy, but like, sometimes it makes you feel a bit behind.

Giselle: And when things feel unfair, what do you usually do?

Fang: Honestly, I just, like, avoid it and try to work harder. ’Cause most of the time, you can’t really change the situation. But you can change your attitude, right?

Giselle: What keeps you motivated?

Fang: I think just, like, wanting to get into uni. That’s the goal, you know? Like, I really want to make it there.

Giselle: Oh, nice! Do you know what course you want to take?

Fang: Yeah, law. (laughs) I know it’s super competitive, but I kinda like that. It’s like… I don’t know, it feels like an achievement if I can get in.

Giselle: Do you think the government’s efforts to make opportunities equal are working?

Fang: I mean, like, they’re trying, I guess. But when you look at the President’s Scholars, it’s always, like, the same few schools. So it doesn’t really feel that equal in reality.

Card Sort (10 mins)

Top is most valued, bottom is least valued.

What Fang values when she thinks of success:

• Grades
• money
• wards
• leadership
• helping family
• stable job
• mental health
• free time

What Fang thinks society / her school values when it comes to success:

• Grades
• awards
• leadership
• stable job
• helping family
• mental health
• free time

Closing (5 minutes)

Giselle: If the Minister of Education asked you for one thing to make things fairer, what would you say?

Fang: Uhh… I don’t know if there’s, like, one single fix. Maybe, like, make tuition or extra help more accessible for lower-income students? ’Cause, like, those things really help. But yeah, honestly, it feels like a bigger, systemic thing, not something one change can fix

Interviewee 3: Nat

Opening (5 minutes)

Giselle: Welcome, Nat. We’re going to have a chat about your experiences. To start us off, can you share one thing you’re proud of from school or outside school?

Nat: (hesitates) Um… actually, I don’t really have anything right now. I used to be in poly, and I think I did debate for a while.

Giselle: That’s okay. Do you have any hobbies, maybe? What do you enjoy doing in your free time?

Nat: Yeah, I like drawing and fashion.

Defining Success (10–15 minutes)

Giselle: Let’s talk about success. What does “being successful” mean to you, and what images come to mind?

Nat: For me, success is pretty much financial freedom. It focuses a lot on money. It means being able to live without having any major concerns, like homelessness, and having a decent budget so I don’t have to worry.

Giselle: Is that because you are worried about your situation now?

Nat: Yes, definitely. So many of my major life decisions are centered around finances. My family taught me those ideas because we come from a low-income household. A lot of our choices depend on our financial situation.

Giselle: Has your idea of success changed over time?

Nat: It’s changed slightly. I think I used to think success meant a specific profession just to earn more money. I even used to want to study law, but then I realized I didn’t actually like it. There’s no point getting super rich if you despise your job.

Giselle: So what’s the balance now between money and passion?

Nat: Right now, I’d say it’s still about 90% money, 10% passion. But I’ve learned that for my career decisions, I need to rely more on passion to motivate myself to continue. It’s not purely motivation, but you definitely have to consider the money it could bring.

Opportunities & Fairness (15 minutes)

Giselle: Can you tell me about a time you felt a process in school was fair or unfair—maybe leadership selection or an award?

Nat: I think the criteria for selecting someone isn’t unfair itself. But the issue is that more privileged people have more resources. They have opportunities or knowledge that wouldn’t be given to a person in a poorer setting.

Giselle: What made it feel that way? Was it criteria clarity or maybe “who you know”?

Nat: Connections plays a huge part. It gives you that sense of “being in the know” to be aware of the opportunities. For example, in school, I was a Dean’s Lister, but the connections I had prior gave me the answers that helped me thrive.

Giselle: If you could redesign one process in your school to make it fairer, what would you change?

Nat: I would focus on making sure that low-income people have better access to tutoring and also specialized programmes in school.

Barriers & Supports (10–15 minutes)

Giselle: What generally gets in the way when you try to do well in school?

Nat: Money is the biggest thing. There are school fees, and I have to contribute to the household. I don’t have enough time because of household duties. Travelling is also an issue; I don’t have the money to go out or travel to conducive spaces to study. I also have caregiving responsibilities; I live with my grandparents and need to take care of them. I used to work part-time, sometimes doing night shifts during school time, which left me very tired.

Giselle: What helps you the most to overcome these barriers?

Nat: The most direct help is bursaries. Being able to apply for grants, like the higher education bursary, really helps me financially.

Emotional Impact & Coping (10–15 minutes)

Giselle: How do ideas about ‘merit’ and comparison affect how you feel day-to-day?

Nat: Now, it doesn’t really affect me; it’s like “it is what it is”. But when I first started to realize the issue of unequal opportunity, I felt a sense of injustice.

Giselle: When things feel unfair, what do you do?

Nat: I have tried to speak up for it. But it’s very draining to have to constantly explain myself. So now, sometimes I just be like, “whatever”.

Giselle: Finally, what keeps you motivated, and what makes you want to give up?

Nat: What keeps me motivated is obligation—the financial need and the desire to make a better life for myself. What makes me want to give up is the unfairness and the biases , especially the idea that “if you don’t make it, it’s your own fault” or that it’s just about laziness.

Card Sort (10 minutes)

Top is most valued, bottom is least valued.

For herself:

• money
• grades
• mental health
• free time
• helping family
• stable job
• awards
• leadership

For the school:

• money
• leadership
• awards
• stable job
• grades
• mental health
• helping family
• free time

Closing (5 minutes)

Giselle: If the Minister of Education asked you for one change to make things fairer, what would you say?

Nat: I don’t like how the resources are concentrated towards elite schools. I would want to change that.

Interviewee 4: Jing

Opening (5 minutes)

Giselle: Share one thing you’re proud of from school or outside school. This can just be, like, one thing.

Jing: Hmm, okay — I think for me ah, I’m, like, really proud of what I do in ODAC. Like, I’m the skills head, and honestly I love it lah. I enjoy, like, teaching my batch mates all the outdoor skills — knots, belaying, all that — ’cause I’m super passionate about it. And outside school right, I’m also quite proud of my cycling. Like, recreational cycling is something I do often, and I feel like it really helps me push myself and explore new places.

Defining Success (10–15 minutes)

Giselle: So, what does being successful mean to you? Like what kinda image comes to mind?

Jing: Okay, so for me ah, success is, like, being able to do what I love and actually feel content, you know? Like, to really enjoy my life. I picture myself overseas, with, like, dogs, and a lifestyle where I can just, like, indulge in my hobbies. Exercise, learn new things, poetry, carpentry, whatever I feel like doing lah. And being able to do that with my family also.

Giselle: Why overseas instead of Singapore?

Jing: I think, like, the idea of a slower pace really appeals to me. Media also plays a part lah, ’cause they always show overseas life like very chill, very nature-based. But I also hear from my relatives in Malaysia, so I know different countries have different vibes. And honestly ah, being more connected to nature and less of the constant urban rush — that really suits me more.

Giselle: Has your idea of success changed over time?

Jing: Ya definitely. Last time when I was younger right, I was very, like, simple-minded, success equals rich lor. But after I grew up, I learned more about, like, who I am and what I enjoy. I realised I really love the outdoors, and I like contributing to the community also. Those things give me meaning. But of course ah, I’m still realistic — money is important. Without financial freedom, how to do everything else, right?

Opportunities & Fairness (15 minutes)

Giselle: Tell me about a time something felt fair or unfair in school.

Jing: So honestly ah, most processes in school for me — from primary to JC — felt quite fair lah. I got my leadership positions, and even when I didn’t get something, I felt like, okay lor, the other person maybe more suitable. For awards also, it’s mainly academic, so quite straightforward — study = higher chance. And I’ve gotten Edusave awards before.

But internships ah, that one not so fair. Like, students who are more well-connected or come from, like, well-off families, they can get much better opportunities. For me, I don’t have that kind of family network, so I cannot get the same access.

Giselle: If you could redesign one process, what would you change?

Jing: I think internships need the most help leh. Like, schools can actually step in to level the playing field. Give more structured placements so it’s not just “your parents’ contacts decide your opportunities,” you get what I mean?

Emotional Impact & Coping (10–15 minutes)

Giselle: How do ideas about merit and comparison affect you day-to-day?

Jing: Honestly ah, it keeps me disciplined. Sometimes studying is very sian, but I know if I don’t put in effort, I’ll confirm fall behind. So the comparison pushes me lah, in a healthy way.

Giselle: When things feel unfair, what do you do?

Jing: I’m the kind who will take action one. Like, if I want opportunities and it feels unfair, I’ll just try harder, ask around, tap whatever resources I have lah. If it’s social stuff, I’ll speak up, I like people to understand where I’m coming from. But sometimes if the situation cannot change, I’ll just leave it lah, don’t waste energy.

Giselle: What keeps you motivated? And what makes you want to give up?

Jing: My friends, for sure. They keep me going. And I like focusing on smaller goals, like doing well for exams, instead of thinking too big until stress. I feel like I only want to give up when I don’t see meaning in something, but generally, if I set my mind to something ah, I’ll do it one…

Card Sort (10 minutes)

Top is most valued, bottom is least valued.

For herself:

• money
• grades
• free time
• helping family
• leadership
• stable job
• awards
• mental health

For the school:

• grades
• leadership
• stable job
• money
• awards
• mental health
• helping family
• free time

References