But what if Singapore had taken a slightly different path? What if meritocracy had led us instead in the direction of increasing social inequality and slowing social mobility as it has done in many countries larger, wiser, and older than us? The country that the generation which saw independence imagined in Singapore's future would be a very different place.

Singapore's rising tide might have raised only the fifty-foot luxury yacht in Sentosa Cove instead of also raising the bumboats and the tugboats and those small boats made of peely-painted plywood you see hanging out in the waters of the Singapore River off Clifford Pier. If history as it played out in other nations of the developed and developing worlds remains true to form, this hypothetical Singapore would find that all except the richest and best educated citizens were slowly becoming poorer and poorer. Under such conditions, the household income of the poorest members of our citizenry might be declining even as the country as a whole faced living standards undreamed of in the dark days of our separation from Malaya. Where the smartest and hardest-working rapidly rose to positions of power and general eminence, it is not difficult to imagine that they also became increasingly adept in holding on to their wealth and influence.

The trendy, expensive eateries and shopping centres for which Singapore is justly famous would be frequented by the young and the wealthy, who would get there in taxis and tremendously expensive cars. Older Singaporeans who had seen Singapore change from a country of flatted factories turning out textiles and (later) electronic goods would be bewildered and left behind by the new knowledge economy. What, they might wonder, is this marvelous new "biotechnology industry" (for example) that the government keeps talking about, and-more important-can it be eaten? Together with the poor and even the middle-class, the old would bumble around on cheap but inconvenient public transport, wistfully looking in at one of the highest living standards in Asia and, some say, the world.

If our publicly-funded education and scholarship systems were not as accessible and non-discriminatory as they are today, we might even find the children of the wealthy and well connected dominating the best schools and the most prestigious scholarships. Living in Districts 9 and 10 would become prerequisites for doing two (or even three) S-papers and then getting into the best overseas universities on the most lavish scholarships--without costly private tuition it would be impossible otherwise for even the most naturally gifted to cope.

And of course, were this all to actually be true, worse-much, much worse-would lie in store. Social stratification would begin inexorably to creep into the egalitarian and meritocratic society that was born in 1965. Public parks and hawker centres would be the only places where the rich would come into contact with the poor, the old, and the obsolete, but they would never do that since these places lack air-conditioning and anyway do not have the cultivated and refined air of country clubs, alumni associations, and fine dining establishments like those sprinkled so liberally around the Sixth Avenue and Holland Village.

Age would not, as our heritage of Asian values tells us, be revered for accumulated wisdom and experience-we would instead revile it for the obsolescence and poverty it implies. We would look with pity at the less educated pioneers of Singapore bewildered by credit card debt, investment vehicles, and six-dollar gourmet coffees from unpronounceable places in South America. We would vow never to let ourselves be left behind like that, to be true riders of the knowledge economy's many and various waves. And then we'd order another double decaf grande vanilla soy latte with a hazelnut shot.

We should all give thanks that luck and wise governance have ensured that none of this has come to pass in Singapore. Otherwise, things would really suck.

Soon Sze Meng and Vaughn Tan