[davidkohcw]

> Although not in this debate, I am stepping in to point out that doesn't mean a thing to support your point.

From a research report from a local university: The institution of National Service is largely regarded as a social equaliser, which embodies fairness, equality and identity. More than 94% of respondents agree that Servicemen from different family backgrounds are treated equally during National Service, and that National Service policies are applied consistently to everyone in similar situations. [1]

In other words, it doesn't matter if you are the son of a millionaire or a janitor, in the army, they treat you the same. Beyond that it forces people to meet people from all sorts of socio-economic levels. And National Service extends until you are around 40 years old, whereby every year they may call you up to serve alongside CEOs', professionals, blue collar workers etc in the army.

Singapore is a very rich country, and it is inevitable that there are the very rich, and the less wealthy. What the government has done is made a very affordable world-class education system that allows everybody an equal chance to equip themselves to succeed in life.

[1] http://docplayer.net/17167540-Institute-of-policy-studies-su...

[nickpsecurity]

"The institution of National Service is largely regarded as a social equaliser, which embodies fairness, equality and identity. More than 94% of respondents agree"

Which doesn't argue against my point at all. I already illustrated where classism comes from and how it can only be one component. You'd have to address the others. Instead, you said a bunch of people surveyed in a police state said the police state plan was good. I've even read plenty of dissent on Singaporeans' blogs and stuff on that one so it's extra funny to see such overwhelming support.

In any case, what numbers and citations you should look for are what percentage of Singaporeans change classes and which transitions those work. Especially how often the poor become Middle Class and how often lower classes become upper class. Additionally, how often do upper classes become lower class. These will assess how much education and performance really matters vs their background or social connections. For example, in the U.S., the last number I saw quoted was 90+% of people stay in their economic class no matter what efforts put in. Most on boards or C-level positions also started as middle or upper class in "Ivy League" schools. So, our system is rigged to operate based on politics and reinforce current class situation as proven by its results.

So, what's Singapore's numbers on that? And could you even get accurate ones with its control over media?

[SamReidHughes]

One problem with comparing those stats across nations is that having centuries of stability will make those stats look a lot worse. Right after a big event like WW II, much of your lot in the world was the result of bad luck -- there were lots more highly-capable poor people, who were likely to move up in life, or whose children were (because of inherited personality traits). A few generations later, a lot of them have moved up, and social mobility will be smaller. You'd expect Singapore to have more social mobility than white America, for this reason alone.

There are also other factors that can help or hurt, like everybody living in the same city.