~by Elvin Ong~
Meritocracy has often been viewed as one of the key tenets of Singaporean culture and local identity. We strive to reward people who are best for the job regardless of their economic or family background, race, or religion, as compared to other countries around the world that reward nepotism and cronyism.
Yet, most recently, there has been some controversy in The Straits Times forum pages over the idea of meritocracy, and its relationship with social and economic inequality. Some commentators continue to argue that Singapore’s version of meritocracy provides the right incentives for an individual’s competitive drive, that it can promote social mobility, thus putting at bay fears of the consequences of social and economic inequality in Singapore. Yet many other commentators feel that meritocracy is elitist and heartless, impinging on their personal notions of fairness and social justice, thus justifying the need for “compassionate meritocracy”.
This debate is to be welcomed, for it signals that a maturing Singapore society is willing to challenge conventional narratives of time-honoured values in order to forge a new consensus for itself. But this debate also reveals that meritocracy is a concept that lacks clarity, and can be subject to intentional or unintentional misuse and abuse. Proponents on both sides often argue past each other, rather than engage each other in constructive dialogue.
Hence, there is an urgent need to understand the inherent assumptions and nuances within the concept of meritocracy before we use it. There is also a need to understand the consequences of adhering to pure meritocracy, for it entails subsequent attitudes towards the rest of society, which, if taken to its extreme, is highly undesirable to say the least.
I propose five self-reflective questions that can help in understanding and clarifying the assumptions and consequences of meritocracy.
First, what counts as merit? For example, when companies recruit, most have a list of objective and subjective criteria to evaluate candidates. The merits differ from position to position, and from company to company. What is required to succeed for a sales executive for a neighbourhood florist is different from a sales executive for a boutique shop selling luxury watches.
At the national level, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has been at the forefront of attempting to broaden the definition of what counts as merit, beyond the conventional notions of academic merit. MOE’s efforts to encourage “multiple peaks of excellence” have resulted in the creation of the Singapore Sports School and the School of the Arts. There are also schemes in place to allow students who have music and sporting merits to enter their choice of secondary school to fully develop their talents.
Second, who determines what counts as merit? In their process of recruitment, different company executives may differ in their expectations of what is desirable and therefore what counts as merit. Multiple studies have shown that when senior management interview candidates, they choose to give the jobs to people like themselves, and not according to any lists of criteria. This is a by-product of confirmation bias, where successful people believe that choosing others with similar attributes to themselves will be successful too.
Turning back to the example of MOE’s policy making, civil servants are the people who have the power to determine what counts as merit. They can either enact policies to push a diversification of what counts as merit, or be pushed by society to enact policies that reflect society’s diverse conceptualization of merit. Either way, enlightened civil servants are crucial.
Third, should uneven starting points be taken into consideration? In an ideal 100m race that evaluates the individual merits of speed and talent, and rewards the competitor who crosses the finishing line first, all competitors begin along the same starting line. Yet reality is much more complex. Individuals begin the race of life from different starting lines, with some much closer to the finishing line and others much further away, by virtue of their family backgrounds.
Whether the positioning of starting lines matter depends on the aim of the organization offering the reward. Different organizations have different goals when offering different rewards (e.g. a job, a scholarship, a bursary, admission to university) to different segments of the population. A foundation may legitimately choose to award bursaries to students from low-income families rather than someone from a wealthy family, even if both obtained admission to university. Likewise, a company may legitimately hire a person based on looks, if it requires the employee to look good for the job.
Fourth, what is the size of the prize? Should someone emerge the winner in the evaluation of merit, different prizes await him or her for their efforts. Yet excessive rewards threaten to spill manifest itself into an issue of moral hazard. The debate over the excessive pay of chief executives in the private sector and of bankers in the financial sector is indicative of this. To be sure, chief executives and bankers possess meritorious qualities that warrant high pay packets, but the substantial concerns over the moral hazards of excessive pay should not be dismissed lightly.
Fifth, what is the appropriate response to losers? If the evaluation of merit results in both winners and losers, then we must necessarily consider its impact on both groups of people. As noted, we readily acknowledge the rewards awaiting the winners, yet scarcely any attention is paid to the losers of a race. Some societies choose to declare, “Tough luck. Try again next time (but you will keep on losing)” whereas other societies choose to say, “We’ll help you in any way we can so that you may win a race one day.” It is unclear where Singaporean society stands on this matter. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between.
At the end of the day, these tough questions to be asked of meritocracy have no easy answers, for they involve further debates about one’s notions of social justice, fairness, morality and power. Yet in any discussion of meritocracy, we must necessarily confront them, for it forces us to understand our own preconceived values and the values of fellow Singaporeans.
_______________________________
The writer is undertaking the MPhil in Politics (Comparative Government) programme at St Antony’s College, University of Oxford.
_______________________________
@ MK Sylvester
That report is hogwash and the author is dishonest in not publishing the full statistics. Of course the Chinese get the majority of the scholarships. 75% of the population is Chinese and 20% Malay. The rest is explained by the demographics of the A-level results:
http://asiancorrespondent.com/29145/singapore-government-dodges-malay-education-issue-again/
Any Singaporean would know that the government does more for our Malay abangs. Racism is not an issue in Singapore.
I think the problem when you view statistics in terms of race and nothing else is that you will draw the conclusion that any difference is explained by race and nothing else.
Instead of viewing the A-level results and scholarship awards in terms of race, how about looking it in terms of income of household or parents? After all, a person can work at changing his household income, but not his race.
Dear People,
I simply cannot accept a philosophy which brushes aside the plight of the poor.
It touches my heart to see an old woman by the MRT station selling tissue paper.
I cannot bear to write off the poor. Maybe I am sentimental about this – but by God – I do not believe in writing off the less fortunate.
To me – it is the duty of the rest of society to find ways to help the less fortunate.
Once again I say – those who ignore the plight of the poor – have lost part of their humanity.
How can you ever sleep in peace knowing that there are so many who have problems putting bread on their table ? What kind of values is that ?
Where is your conscience ?
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Dear Godwin & Panache,
Heil Hitler !! SS Jawohl ! Seig Heil. Seig Heil. Seig Heil !!
Maybe that turns you on – but it leaves the rest of society with a foul taste in the mouth.
This PAP thing is clearly turning into some kind of retro nightmare of the Nazi kind. What kind of values do these people have in writing off the poor ?
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
“To me – it is the duty of the rest of society to find ways to help the less fortunate.”
And once again I ask you: what form will this “help” take, and who will be made to provide this “help”? Who will make sure that these people “help”?
Dear Godwin,
Let the Opposition provide a plan to address these issues if the PAP is still in denial mode.
I personally think that we should tinker with the education system and at the same time – find means to help the poor AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY and NOT JUST CHARITY.
Whatever the case may be – a comprehensive plan is needed and the politicians should address this issue.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
No concrete proposals, just motherhood statements then? I’m sure the poor appreciate your help right there.
Dear Godwin,
At least I acknowledge that there is a problem. The PAP and people like you – would just like to write off the poor and pretend that there is no problem.
Once again I say – it is the politicians who should come up with concrete proposals to address this problem.
As a citizen, I have done my part by identifying the problem and calling for its solution.
The ball is in the politician’s court.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
“The PAP and people like you – would just like to write off the poor and pretend that there is no problem.”
I never said that there isn’t a problem.
What I disagree with here is not that the poor need help, but that the principle of meritocracy is at fault and that the solution is to “level the playing field”.
I am also wary of calls for “society to help the poor” because all too often that is an excuse for politicians to tax the productive individuals so they can implement populist policies (while retaining a cut for themselves). If citizens themselves think that charity is not the solution and rely on the gahment to help, then they are effectively agreeing to letting the gahment have more control over them and society, and giving them the mandate to tax us even more (raise GST to help the poor, anyone? See, PAP acknowledges there is a problem – but do you agree with their solution?).
Dear Godwin,
I think that its a matter of public policy and not merely charity.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
“I think that its a matter of public policy and not merely charity.”
Which conveniently means you don’t have to do anything yourself other than “identifying the problem and calling for its solution”.
I’m sure the poor are lining up to thank you now.
Dear Godwin,
Once again you are running away from the topic. Tell me – who here has the necessary information to make detailed welfare plans ?
Neither you nor me. Hell even Ong Teng Cheong don’t have access to such info !
Stop shifting the blame around. The PAP exacerbates the income divide and the problems of capitalism – by insisting on an academic-based meritocracy. Sorry but meritocracy doesn’t work when the income divide is great. Meritocracy becomes a plutocracy when there is a big income divide.
Whether you like it or not – some form of WELFARE is needed. But of course – welfare is not in the PAP’s vocabulary.
So yes – I identify and acknowledge the problem and then I admit for a fact that SINGAPORE MAY HAVE TO CONSIDER SOME FORM OF WELFARE……..
So will you accept the need for some kind of WELFARE for the less fortunate or will you stick to GST and Workfare ?
I don’t believe in Workfare because it does not narrow down the income divide. And I certainly don’t believe in manipulating the GST.
The solution is some form of WELFARE – something which the PAP will never admit…
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Quote:”That report is hogwash and the author is dishonest in not publishing the full statistics. Of course the Chinese get the majority of the scholarships. 75% of the population is Chinese and 20% Malay. The rest is explained by the demographics of the A-level results:
Any Singaporean would know that the government does more for our Malay abangs. Racism is not an issue in Singapore.”
My question is did you challenge the Author on his study topic, researches and literature’s?
Please show us any evidences of your allegation on the studies made by the academic?
Singapore does have welfare, as stated in another article on TOC:
“If a welfare state is loosely defined as a state that takes steps to redress the inequitable distribution of resources by the free market, then Singapore is surely a welfare state. Our progressive income tax system, highly selective social services, and various means-tested subsidies are clearly redistributive. In fact, our social spending has been rising in recent years, which suggests we are a growing welfare state.”
Welfare takes from people who are productive to give to people who are not; meritocracy rewards those who are productive. If you have the first but not the second, guess what type of society you are going to end up with.
Just to link to an article on the subject of welfare:
http://singaporeansays.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-welfare-culture-evolves-3.html
Godwin3 October 2011
Just to link to an article on the subject of welfare:
http://singaporeansays.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-welfare-culture-evolves-3.html
………….
why are you linkin a welfare case that is dealt in britain? what significance are you tryin to paint ere?
in case you didn’t know british VAT taxes are meant to assist/offset welfares not for the queen’s pocket money
as shole you shall always be
To me, meritocracy is a way to make ppl believe there is Equality so that you work your hardest for richmen who are your boss.
But is there equality to begin with?
A hum born to rich family inherit the hum wealth without meritocracy.
He buys cronies and self interest leeches to destroy his enemies. Is this meritocracy?
His cronies sons and daughters got top jobs because of cronism. What meritocracy?
You work harder n is better but crony son back stab u. Is this meritocracy?
Meritocracy is more idealism than reality.
Its a managemt technique.
Most things are based on kuanxi, cronism etc.
Dear Godwin,
The so-called welfare that we currently have in Singapore – is far from sufficient to address the imbalances of meritocracy operating in a society with a large income divide.
We need a greater commitment to welfare rather than just workfare and manipulation of the GST (which many have argued is really a regressive taxation).
I want to see what our politicians have in plan when Parliament sits on the 10th of October and I can’t wait to see the Budget Debates 2012 !
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
“A hum born to rich family inherit the hum wealth without meritocracy.”
Then how? You die all your money confiscate by gahment, cannot give to your children?
“He buys cronies and self interest leeches to destroy his enemies. Is this meritocracy?”
No. That’s cronyism. No one said that’s merotocracy.
“His cronies sons and daughters got top jobs because of cronism. What meritocracy?”
No. That’s nepotism. Again, no one said that’s meritocracy.
“Meritocracy is more idealism than reality.”
Agree. But as an ideal it is better than anything else anyone has suggested here. The solution is to make our meritocracy more perfect, not to blame the plight of the poor on the concept of meritocracy.
“The so-called welfare that we currently have in Singapore – is far from sufficient to address the imbalances of meritocracy operating in a society with a large income divide.”
So is your argument with meritocracy, or not enough welfare? Is welfare a better way of deciding who gains social capital instead of meritocracy? Should we decide who gets more based on who gives more, or who needs more?
Dear Godwin,
BOTH ! To address the problems spawned by meritocracy operating in a society with a large income disparity – you need to address both the mechanisms of meritocracy on one hand, as well as the income divide via welfare on the other.
You cannot hope to solve this problem without addressing the siamese twin problems of meritocracy and welfare/income divide
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Dear People
Let me tell all of you here – I am waiting to watch the Parliament sittings starting this 10th October. I am also waiting to see the Budget Debates 2012.
Lets see how much our politicians care about the less fortunate.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
“… you need to address both the mechanisms of meritocracy on one hand, as well as the income divide via welfare on the other.”
OK. On welfare I think we are so diametrically opposed there is no point arguing.
My next question is: is it the principle of meritocracy you are against, or the way it is being practised here?
Dear Godwin,
What I am against is the practice of meritocracy WHEN THERE IS A LARGE INCOME DIVIDE.
If you can accept some kind of welfare that narrows the income divide – then meritocracy would be more palatable.
Meritocracy – to me – should be premised on a level playing field. If there is a level playing field then I think I can accept meritocracy.
But when the issue of the income gap is not at all adequately addressed – then I reject meritocracy because it will end up becoming a plutocracy. Where is social justice in that situation ?
So my answer is that I can accept meritocracy ONLY if there is a reasonably small income gap i.e. when there is a fairly level playing field.
Without reducing the income gap so as to achieve a more balanced wealth distribution – I find it very difficult to accept meritocracy.
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
So how do you think we should reduce the income gap?
Dear Godwin,
A multi-prong approach PLUS SOME FORM OF WELFARE BEYOND JUST WORKFARE & GST MANIPULATIONS.
In addition to the current effort – you cannot ignore the reality of the need for some kind of welfare program. But of course the PAP is dead set against welfare – stemming from LKY’s abhorrence to it.
Perhaps in the 1970′s and the 1980′s – the income divide was not so palpable or visible. There were still plenty of manufacturing jobs in Singapore. I grew up in that era and I saw and witnessed the prosperity for all back then. That made social mobility rather achievable.
But today – things are very different. The income divide and social mobility are huge issues. You cannot simply turn a blind eye to the reality of the need for some form of welfare.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Let me be specific: Whose money are you going to take to give to whom?
Dear Godwin,
There is only one money in Singapore. And it is the people’s money in the reserves.
Of course – once again – the PAP will be against that based on their 1970′s assumptions.
Alternatively – stop all forms of GST, ERP etc and just implement a very steep progressive tax ! Make the rich help pay for social mobility.
Again the PAP will be against that – based on their 1970′s assumptions.
Godwin – there is only one money here in Singapore and it is the people’s money.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
“…just implement a very steep progressive tax ! Make the rich help pay for social mobility.”
How is that justifiable?
Dear Godwin,
No one becomes rich of his or her efforts alone. Social and political stability are things which the rich never mention as pre-requisites to gaining wealth.
The rich owe it to society – albeit indirectly – for their acquired wealth.
They live off the hard work of their workers – whose pay in Singapore does not keep up with a rising cost of living.
No one makes it to the big time purely on his or her efforts alone. No one.
In success – one owes society a great deal.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Sure. The rich are not entitled to their wealth and the poor are not responsbile for their poverty. Nice world.
Anyway, I think we’ve strayed too far off the subject of this post. This will be my last comment on welfare here.
Just one last question – you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to:
Do you deserve the money you earn?
Dear Godwin,
You are making a straw man fallacy here. Of course the rich are entitled to their wealth. BUT the rich are also duty-bound to help the less fortunate because they have reaped the most benefits from a peaceful society.
And yes the poor also need to work hard to get out of poverty.
But all this does not imply that welfare is always bad. There are times when welfare is needed. Just as there are times when welfare is not needed such as the 1970′s and 1980′s Singapore.
Do I deserve the money I make ? Well yes – but I do not shirk from the responsibility to help the less fortunate.
You are just making a straw man fallacy here. Everyone who earns well – deserves the money they make. BUT that does NOT mean that they can absolve themselves from a responsibility to contribute back to society.
As for the poor – yes – they too have a responsibility to work hard. BUT compassion must be shown to them.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Dear Godwin,
And now I have a question for you. Would you be saying all this stuff – if you are one of the poor in Singapore ?
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
I know I said I wouldn’t comment anymore, but since you asked…
“Would you be saying all this stuff – if you are one of the poor in Singapore?”
I was poor, Dr Syed. My family was poor. We struggled to pay all the bills but through it all I didn’t think I was entitled to anyone else’s money. I got into a good school even though my parents weren’t from there, worked during school holidays, watched my spending, survived on the meagre NS allowance after I completed school, got a job, took on some of the family debt as soon as I was confirmed. When I was able to, I started giving to a charity for under-privileged children.
I don’ think society owes me anything, or that I owe it; it didn’t ‘give’ me opportunities – I merely had something to supply a demand; and if I didn’t have anything of value to give, I wouldn’t presume to take.
The option to “give back to society” is always there, and I exercised that option, not because I feel it is my obligation, but because I know what it was like to be the poor kid in the class. What frightens me is the call from those who want to make that a DUTY, enacted into policies.
Dear Godwin… I agree with your post above totally.
Dear Dr Syed Alwi
Its is all too easy to say help the poor; help the poor; help the poor!! How? Use our reserves; use our reserves; use our reserves! Tax the rich!
Life is never fair. Some are born with a silver spoon; some with a diamond spoon and some with a wooden spoon. Obviously there are bigger opportunities for those with a silver/gold/diamond spoon. Some are born smarter and some are born less smart.
BUT Meritocracy gives you a chance to climb up the “social” ladder. You may never go to the diamond or gold spoon level… but you could move into a broze spoon and hopefully the next generation another level up. Thats what Meritocracy is all about.
I see the majority of Singaporeans as middle class.
It is not a sin to be rich, neither is it a sin to be poor. BUT if you chose to be lazy than remain poor… you cannot blame anyone for your plight. At least in Singapore, if you are willing to work hard, you will be ‘rewarded”.
Dear Godwin & AT,
Sorry but I do NOT subscribe to your values. For me – as a Muslim – I pay the Zakat (alms to the poor) and I do charity as well as give discounts or cut some slack for those who cannot afford.
I believe – as do most Muslims – that it is the DUTY of the rich to also help out the poor.
And I certainly do NOT believe in meritocracy when there is NO level playing field.
I can accept meritocracy ONLY if the income divide is small or adequately addressed. Without reducing the income divide – meritocracy will only be a hollow plutocracy…
I guess we have different value systems.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Dear People,
I say this again – those who ignore the plight of the poor have lost part of their humanity….
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
The saying goes : the rich get richer. The poor gets poorer.
Meritocracy is more mythical than real. At most there is only partial meritocracy.
When isa is Lisa, when donkey is white, family business, when corruption, when appoint chief hum, when self interest over hum interest, when kia su kia si kia sai n LJ, when fear as weapon, when insider trading, when relatives get juicy posts, when por LP is the name of the game,
What meritocracy?
Nabush es the chee?
Hi readers
Do we know that Dr Syed Alwi is a stauch supporter of UMNO?
He said so himself before.
Now, what does UMNO stand for and how does the region, the country’s minorites and people like the US Ambassador J Mallot or the EU Trade Secretary see UMNO?
Dear Pan,
Another ad hominem attack ! Please address the issues I raise and not my person.
And whats so good about the PAP anyways ? Pay and pay ?
Look – you either address the points I raised or you don’t. But don’t make personal attacks as a lame excuse.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Godwin 3 October 2011
The option to “give back to society” is always there, and I exercised that option, not because I feel it is my obligation, but because I know what it was like to be the poor kid
………………………………………………….
F*** you. The reason you give back to charity is so you receive tax deductions. Don’t try to paint yourself as philantropher. YOu are nothing but an opportunistic, illegitimate son of a whore
Godwin 3 October 2011
and if I didn’t have anything of value to give, I wouldn’t presume to take.
……………………………………………
Well-said. So make sure your daughter doesn’t take anything even after spreading her legs and there were no takers.
Eh! Alwi!
You support bumiputera or not? Yes/no?
Eh!
meritocracy my ass!!! Its an idea put out by egoist asshole. In a good society, we should instead encourage the Elite helping the poor to survive the enviroment. This will benefit the whole society as a whole. Whoever miss my point is a failure in life.A failure means he fail as a son or a husband.
I suspect it would be hard to find any lawyer willing to defend meritocracy when its an ideal based on a totally fair system without possibility of unfairness.
When peranakan curry cooked, i celebrate by opening a red wine bought from switzerland exactly for this purpose. Its even been labelled with his name. How many waiting to spit on your gravey?
Dear Lee See Hoh,
I prefer to deal with social class i.e. rich or poor – rather than race. Singapore is a Non-Muslim majority country – so there is NO issue about Bumiputeraism etc. The issue in Singapore is social class – the rich-poor divide.
But Malaysia is a Muslim majority nation with Islam as its official religion. Whether you admit it or not – the bulk of the Malaysian Malays still demand Bumiputeraism. Can this be changed ? Perhaps – BUT – certainly not in the near future. Maybe in 30 to 50 years time.
I have been very honest here. And I sure hope that you respect my views and stand on this matter.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
There is no meritocracy. A degree or academic results would give you an opportunity to get an interview. It does not ensure you get the job nor does it ensure you get a promotion.
Yet it is who you know and the leverage of connections which would let you get a job. Many a times, when it comes to promotion, the people whom are closest to the boss, often are the ones who get promoted.
TPL is one classic example of whom you know and not what you do.
Since the dawn of time it is so, even now it is still so.
True meritocracy is a lie.
Although a strong central meritocracy is one of the pillars and tenets of good governance in Singapore, it is incontrovertible that academic performance has become a pivotal measure of merit, and that breeds elitism and leave losers more skeptical about their own prospects for upward mobility. I want to be a top student on an elite school’s scholarship programme, recipient of a prestigious academic prize and even become the President, just like everyone else. Who wants to be disdained and desperate and then jump to his death at an MRT station?
In truth, there is no perfect world. So it is not really surprising that any kind of political principle, including meritocracy, is never perfectly practised. But if we believe that the principle is correct, that is a good starting point. Then we should just continuously strive to make it better in practice.
The other point is that things are always dynamic, never static. In the earlier years, the playing field was more level. Now it is less level because through the way meritocracy is practised and how things naturally evolve, the income gap has widened. We ought to find ways to fix this without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Easier said than done, of course. But getting more people to talk about the problem is a good way to begin.