I understand what you mean. This is exactly what I believe needs to be done.

This is not just about idealism, but also tackling the problem in its roots. In this case, elitism is not at fault. The problem is simply not upholding meritocracy enough: selecting the most competent people do the job.

Academic qualifications is probably the only practical way to sort out massive number of applications. But whenever possible, I find government and large organisations generally (i.e. on the whole, not every instance) has a greater tendency to overlook other aspects beyond paper qualifications. Small companies are usually better at this, although the appraisal criteria is less standardised.

(I don’t know the details, so I don’t think I can or should draw specific conclusions about your work place.)

I do agree that appraising a large group of people is not an easy task. But I am pointing out one from among the big group whom everyone know is deserving of some meritocratic recognition by his own merit. The department’s colleagues from peers to executives and managers have all pushed for some form of recognition from the company’s HR division.

Unfortunately, the only stumbling block is his O level education. HR cannot proceed to recognise his contribution because of his lack of academic achievements. It is compelled to follow a set of strict guidlines that stipulates meritocracy by academic achievements only. We are talking about a govt institution here.

Even his former manager who had since left after being promoted to a Director position, felt bad for him that all these executives and managers have moved up while this poor fellow is being left behind to help new executives and managers on their way up.

Walk into this department and you will see the many initiatives, good works and strong foundations which the dept is progressing on, which this fellow has contributed to, since his arrival a few years ago.

Talk to him about meritocracy and he laughs, without resentment, because he enjoys his work. This is besides the point. Where is the ‘to-give-credit-where-credit-is-due’ part of meritocracy?

This is why I say that meritocracy must be further addressed by the govt to make it clear that academic achievements should not, must not, be the ONLY criteria for appraisals. This is the case with the current understanding of meritocracy.

Hi singaporedaddy,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts but I think you’ve missed the point for once, ha! ha!, although it is a good lesson by itself.

I don’t think we are looking at the comparison of the peer-to-peer factor. In the present national context of meritocracy, we are looking more at the ’shepherds’, by the way you have described.

It is more like the search for good shepherds, than it is, the ability of the shepherd to command his sheep. It is about the shepherds who decide whether you make enough of a good shepherd to join the clique, by a single criteria, which is, your ability to read and write.

Against this, I am saying, the shepherds ought to look at other factors that are just as meritorious, like his ability to connect with the sheep, his love and joy working with the sheep etc. Can these be measured and how?

Yes, you are right, that’s an astute observation. Just to add on.

I believe there are two types of people in this world; one is sheep; the other are foxes.

Sheep are good. They’re obedient. Reliable and dependable especially when one considers how readily they take to the pen without too much fuss. And if sherperded wisely they can even produce moderate to fair results, but don’t expect anything stellar; that’s true to the nature of sheep; one needs to set the right expectations.

Foxes on the otherhand; are perennially difficult, if not impossible to control; for one they’re capricious and ANY talk of “control” is strictly out the question; one could even say whether they choose to do your bidding depends on the vagaries of a hundred; if not a thousand things; but foxes when matched properly with their element are diabolically smart; they know when to pull and push; and when it comes to the snatch and run; they have no comparable equal and that’s why they will always remain the preferred quarry of the professional huntsman and his terriers – the fox will always be the proverbial run for your money by half.

Now you know why no bothers to hunt sheep; it’s like SDU, they’re just standing there; they’re simply zero sport.

The problem is this; when we talk about meritocracy and scholarship in tandem; while we may all agree and disagree on an endless medley of objects of interest; there is one thing that we can all agree on without too much difficulty.

Never ever send a sheep to do the fox’s job.

The problem as I see it; there are too many sheeps in the system; as for the foxes; they’re too busy impersonating sheep.

But trust me; their day will come. It must. It always does.

SD

I believe that the competency should, as far as possible, be interpreted in the broader sense as you have mentioned. Because appraising the performance of a large group of people is inherently difficult, academic achievement is often used as a first stage to filter candidates. The process is imperfect, but it does not arise from practicing meritocracy but from the difficulty of performance appraisal.

What we can do and should do is try our best within practical bounds to appraise performance as accurately as possible, then select the most competent candidate for the job. In most cases, using the broader type of appraisal is only possible when the number of candidates has been narrowed down to a manageable size.

To see if meritocracy is practiced in your specific example, the question to ask is this: “Who is more capable at the job?” In this particular situation, we can actually afford to go beyond academic qualifications to appraise abilities.

If whatever non-executive staff is helping is not just part of the job of the executive staff but all of their work, then it is clear that the non-executive staff is more competent and should be selected to do the job. If that is really the situation, then your department is not meritocratic. On the other hand, if the executive staff are actually also doing other stuff that the non-executive is not capable of, then the situation becomes more complicated. And I don’t feel qualified to comment without knowing the details.

Whether your department is meritocratic or not , I think the non-executive should be acknowledged since it seems to me that she has made a substantial contribution. But it looks more like a problem of office politics here.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I still have this lingering thought in my head that meritocracy is very often, if not all the time, associated with tertiary education, that is, intellectual advancement and the accordance of merit by the degree of this advancement. Academic achievement counts above all else.

Besides academic ability, can meritocracy be applied in other areas of one’s life? What about the ability to connect, to be of ’social value’ to the community, of being able to contribute effectively to the progress of the country. How measureable is this outside of academic achievement or attainment?

Let me offer an example:
I have with me a colleague who holds a non-executive position whose contributions to the department (and therefore company) is way beyond 3 executives put together, in terms of knowledge and expertise in the areas of crafting policies and determining new job scopes etc.

He highest education level is ‘O’ level while the 3 executives are degree holders and very ofthen, these executives would come to him for help when they need to word documents like job instructions or new initiatives. The executives will ultimately put name to paper and take credit for the work done. What does it leave behind for this poor fellow? How does meritocracy apply in a scenario like this?

Your comment wasn’t censored. The comment has more than one url link and was automatically put in moderation. This is to prevent spam comments from being posted, like those from porn websites.

Your comment is now released from the queue.

Regards,
Andrew Loh

I posted a comment here but it didn’t appear. Is there a technical problem, or was it censored? How does it work? Is it possible to make the discussion forum transparent?

This is what I think:

I agree with #90 that children in better educated families tend to do better on average (not always). And I also believe that in most cases the reason can be economical and social. But, more importantly, the dominant advantage is largely cultural, as in the “cultural capital” that #18 mentioned and also what Obama has said: [1]

“…no education policy can replace a parent who’s involved in their child’s education from day one, who makes sure their children are in school on time, helps them with their homework after dinner, and attends those parent-teacher conferences. No government program can turn off the TV, or put away the video games, or read to your children.”

The point is not to put the blame on parents, but to say that:

a) Meritocracy and elitism are not the what gives more educated families a head-start. Elitism should be abolished because it deliberately gives privileges to a particular class of people. Meritocracy should be upheld because it is impartial to race, religion, background, etc.

b) Even if the advantage that children in educated family possess is sort of “born into”, because the success factors are cultural, social, and economical (and rarely genetic), the socio-economic gap CAN be narrowed.

c) The more effective approach to narrowing the socio-economic gap is through social welfare and educational policies, rather than eliminating any comparative advantage to set the playing field to ground zero. (I doubt the Chinese Communist Party now thinks that Cultural Revolution is the solution to poverty.) Particularly, we need to go beyond monetary hand-outs to stretch the taxpayers’ dollar.

Take education policies, some possibilities include what #18 has said. In additional, there is reliable evidence blindly pumping more money does not improve the quality of education. What works are: hiring the best to be teachers, training teachers well, giving weak students more help and earlier [2]. In these 3 aspects, I think there are still rooms for improvement.

[1] Barack Obama’s Education Speech in Ohio. http://www.barackobama.com/2008/09/09/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_111.php
[2] How to be Top: Lessons in education policy. The Economist, Oct 2007.
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_JJRJJTQ
(full article here: http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/education4.html)

———————————————————-
Smallvice585, Good morning.
I feel that you are generalising too much here. Government scholars are NOT permitted to join a political party, even the PAP, while under the scholarship. If I were one, I wouldn’t want to voice to you or any others, except to my own group, about my expectations of the civil service for many reasons, most important of which would be the danger of a negative remark being used by people who are out to bash the government.

Now why would I want to take that risk, when I’m still in the process of studying, learning and hardly know much about the inner workings of the civil service? Any scholar, worth his or her salt, would want to find out further, to get a better picture of the service before making suggestions, much less criticisms.

Can you really claim to know all the facts pertaining to even just one matter in Singapore e.g. Water? Do you know about the conflicting consequences of just one policy to the various ministries?

It is wise of the scholars not to say anything, until they can get a full picture. Perhaps many non-scholars should take a lesson from this too.

Having said that, I am actually supportive of young people voicing their idealism, even in a non-ideal real world. Young people should hold a high degree of idealism, which in time will have to be compromised somewhat.
If they start at a compromised stage, then they would descend to an even lower level. This would be bad for the society.

a. that since, generally, rich or educated people has some advantage, then what are we actually looking at, meritocracy or elitism? Consider this, if the rich pool gets bigger, intellectual level increases because of the advantage this group enjoys, then what becomes of the equation? A super-intelligent group of people who enjoys both the fruits of Elitism and Meritocracy? What’s left for the rest of the deprived lot who cannot even compete to begin with?

b. Biological, or genes. This is very much against one man’s believe that super-genes begets super-genes. How to disprove this especially as the belief that this can be cultivated to increase this pool of superdupergenes community?

I know I am asking out of the context of this discussion but I would appreciate your opinion on this, if you do not mind.

Thanks.

As for the part about alumni, there might be some connotation of elitism since some accepted students might happen to be children of successful alumni, although I don’t think it going be very very rare. It’s only primary school, too early. How possible is it that a primary school can actually churn out “elites”?

I think the main intention is build strong alumni networks and a sense of identity, which I don’t think is excluding any social class. Personally, I prefer not since I find it better to give families living nearby more convenience.

Please don’t take it offensively. Isn’t the whole point trying to argue that rich or educated people generally has some advantage. And this is true generally (i.e. on the average) but not always true individually (i.e. any specific person)? And that the reasons are largely economical and social, rather biological or laziness? So there is hope, and no disgrace. And that goal is to help the economically or socially disadvantage people catch up by providing welfare, support, opportunities etc?

You are right about the unfainessof the Primary 1 registration process and I will accept your explanation.

As for the advantage given to grassroots leaders and alumni, and while agreeing that they do not fall under the elite category description, I cannot help but think that there is still an element of it in the process. Should we call it Class II or Class III Elites? It still suggests a class system of sort, am I right?

My humble advise to you is to keep to the ones that engage your level of thinking. There will be thoughtless, insensitive and plain insulting elements in every corner of cyberspace (not that I am picking on the ones who replied to you). Some are necessary to stress a point while others are just plain stupid. We take them all in our strides.

—————————–

Thank you gemani for your concern.
I’m immune to insensitive remarks, and will always try my very best never to descend to name-calling.

I think my years of experience dealing with all kinds of people has fortified me enough……….and I know there are many people out there who are sensible.

——————————-
86) singaporedaddy on December 22nd, 2008 9.54 am Good Morning 78) sobri

Yes it is…………..it is a good morning. I hope it is too for you.

>We in the brotherhood believe very strongly, the present scholarship program is >flawed.

I agree with you there. There are defects.

>We are not able to accomodate you or anyone here further due to the present >limitation which I have highlighted. In my view that is regrettable.

>Many thanks and do have a very nice day

Now that IS a sad fact. You are right, it is regrettable, if there is indeed a better system. It should be debated openly, perhaps even at the PAP website.

Perhaps one day it will come true………seeing just how the government is opening up, though slowly.

Have a nice day to you too.

If we use his (#90) definition of meritocracy and elitism, then the primary 1 registration system is not meritocratic. Moreover, the main criteria in the registration process is not elitist.

First, the unfairness of the registration process you mentioned above does not look at child’s ability, therefore it is not meritocratic. In fact, it shouldn’t be. How we can gauge a child’s performance even before he or she starts formal education?

Second, the main rational of the registration process, I believe, is to reduce travelling time and also to ease the load of families with more than one child. Proximity to school and presence of sibling in the school are the main factors for consideration. These has nothing to do with the social class of the child, so it is not elitist. Obviously, this is not meritocratic.

I suppose that you want to mean that the registration process is unfair. It is. Familiies living further away do not have an equal chance. But this is neither meritocracy nor elitism. It is a trade-off between travelling convenience and having more school choices.

Your points about giving admission advantage to grassroots leaders and alumni is a valid one. But it is not elitism because not all the grassroot leaders or alumni belong to the upper social class. This type of unfairness is just unfairness which is not specific enough to be categorised as elitism. And I agree that it is a good idea to abolish such privileges. But I believe the proximity and sibling rules should be kept.

Good take from points 1 to 3 but I have problem with your take from points a to g. Care to share discuss them further?

Points b & c. How certain are you that elitism is not in play during the selection process of meritocracy. One fine example is our Primary 1 registration system. One can advance his queue number by 1, 2 or 3 stages depending on one’s degree of affiliation to the school of choice. If you have siblings in the same school, you place is assured, if you are a grassroot member, you queue number is shortened, you are even accorded privilege if you live in close proximity of within 1 km, just to name a few. Is this meritocracy or some sort of class system at work? Cannot say it is elitism as well.

Point d. Perception or truth? Prove it.

Point e. Why must social welfare be equated with handouts? Most people who ask for help would prefer if they were given opportunities to be able to put in place an avenue that help sustain their continued welfare based on their own effort. In other word, society must ask itself why is this group of people ‘under-privileged’ in the first place and help them ‘up’ their privilege instead.

Points f & g. These points become irrelevant when point e is properly looked into, don’t you think? When the underprivileged are taught how to live ‘in’ privilege, they will in turn contribute to the economy instead of continuing to live off it.
:)

meritocracy is merely another elitist system of social organisation by another set of criteria.

elitism is inevitable in any type of societies.

our current elitism is merely an outcome of meritocracy that is inherently elitist.

1. Meritocracy is the selection of people based on their ability, regardless of family background, affluence, race, or even genes!! :-). This is the most beneficial mechanism to the organisation.

2. Elitism is giving special privileges to a class of people whom are perceived as superior. This is often confused with meritocracy.

3. Social welfare is benefits provided to the general public. More commonly, it specifically refers to benefits provided to the less privileged people, like the old, sick, poor etc.

In this light, some of the common issues can seen as follows:

a. Only allowing university graduates to have matching service, i.e. SDU. This is elitism since it excludes people who are perceived as less superior.

b. Awarding scholarships/sponsorships (or whatever it’s called) based on ability is MERITOCRACY, NOT ELITISM, because the selection criteria does not look at the family background of the applicant. The sole criteria is competency. You don’t ask the applicant how much his family earns and give him the scholarship/sponsorship just based on that.

c. We can question whether the selection criteria is overly based on academic results. This is a valid point about what qualifies as “competent” but we should always remember that the whole point is always about ABILITIES, not about giving privileges or making things fair to different classes of people.

d. Children of better-off families (in terms of education or wealth) tend to do better on average due to a variety of factors which are mostly social and economical, and only rarely genetical. This is a widely accepted as true. (Note that I mean on the whole, not individually, i.e. I do not mean it is impossible for less well-off children to make it.)

e. I think the most relevant topic of helping the less privileged class is the issue of social welfare. The most practical approach is to ask how can we help the less privileged class more effectively without increasing the budget. This is also the hardest approach. For example, cutting welfare administrative cost, simplification of application process, reducing subsidies abuse, more effective pedagogical methodologies, etc.

f. Increase the social expenditure is seemingly the easiest way out. Most often it means increasing taxation which is an unpopular choice. THE BOTTOM LINE IS —- how much more are you willing to pay to support people worse off than you?

g. Look at things this way: People who are not paying taxes, probably like the family above, are living off other taxpayers for social benefits (which is neither unlawful nor disgraceful). For people who are already paying taxes, how many are willing to pay more tax to support families like the above without enjoying additional benefits themselves? People in higher tax bracket has less to gain — they can afford what they want and don’t use much social subsidies anyway.

The following is my humble and personal opinion.

I do understand that TOC has grown in stature and there is an increased need for it to regulate some of the comments being posted in its discussion threads.

I also understand that most members working behind TOC are not full-timers and enforcing such regulations can be an unwanted chore. It is therefore important for posters to understand this and to exercise self-restrain when it comes to posting offensive or irrelevant comments.

TOC cannot, not for want of trying, regulate in fairness if it allows, on the one hand, offensive posts to seep through every now and then while on the other hand regulate by targeting posters who have a tendency to comment in a certain style and using descriptive forms that it may deem out of context or irrelevant to the subject.

To this end, I suggest TOC allows such postings to go through and let readers decide, minus the usual objectional contents that are racial, religious and and personal in nature, of course.

This is just an opinion and a reply is not necessary. I know that we have been asking a lot of TOC lately and you guys have been very patient and understanding to our requests. I appreciate this and if there is any way I can continue to provide helpful suggestions, I will.

Keep up the good job! You guys have been great!

I come from a university where almost all the Singaporean students are government scholars. Some of these scholars enjoy the subject they study at university while some love overseas experience, but none of them has any opinion on how the public service and civil service should develop. This means none of them has any expectation of the public service and civil service should adopt.