~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.
_______________________________
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Dear People,
First of all – I am talking about Singapore and NOT Malaysia. Sure the racial quotas of the NEP is NOT the way forward. Even PM Najib has begun to slowly distance himself from such ideas.
BUT Singapore is NOT Malaysia. If you are a Malaysian living in Singapore – well – we would you be if you do not earn enough ?
Meritocracy – without a level playing field – will only benefit the rich. Because it is the rich who can afford all that expensive tution, enrichment programs, coaching and so on.
What happens to the poor ? Do NOT forget that in Singapore – meritocracy is based on merely academic performance.
I can understand your frustration with the NEP – but thats Malaysia. If you want to live here in Singapore – you better wisen up to the realities of everyday life in Singapore.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
“Meritocracy only makes sense when there is a level playing field.”
I think that’s a common misconception. Meritocracy isn’t about who worked the hardest or who walked a longer distance, but who can best deliver.
Arrogance, superiority tendencies, it is all showing.
Dear Godwin,
In Singapore, meritocracy is based purely on academic performance. And the ones who can best deliver academic performance – are precisely those who can afford all those extras that I mentioned.
Sorry – but I don’t believe in meritocracy when there is NO level playing field. Over my dead body !
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Mr syed alwi
“In Singapore, meritocracy is based purely on academic performance”
You said tge above. That leaves u with zero credibility.
Based purely on academic?
Either that is not what u meant or u flunkef u england.
Sg is not purely that.
If u born to rich family u are unequally rich by birth. There is nothing meritocratic or based on academic there.
If you a crony, get goodies, lobang. What meritocracy ?
You dictorate got from where?
Any pretence of Meritocracy went out the door when TPL became MP!
I recommend the book “Justice” by Michael J. Sandel. In it he discusses meritocracy and its drawbacks, among other things.
First there is democracy. But some democracy as practised seem to deviate somewhat Such deviated democracy is then coined as Guided Democracy and everyone is happy. Meritocracy seems to walk similar path towards Guided Meritocracy.
“I don’t believe in meritocracy when there is NO level playing field.”
So what in your mind constitues a level playing field, and how do you propose we level the playing field?
Godwin1 October 2011
So what in your mind constitues a level playing field, and how do you propose we level the playing field
…………..
simply by scrappin the grc..what so diifficult?
hav u ever prayed a game where 1 vote=6winners?
I agree with Dr Syed Alwi.
Just take a look around you. the elite administrative service is filled by scholars who were academic aces. They are put on a special track with fast promotions and paid close to $15,000 to $30,000 a month to stay loyal and secure and safeguard the vested interests of the ruling party. Last year, these elite governemnt servants were paid close to eight months bonuses.
Apart from the odd citizen who makes it to this exclusive club despite his or her poor beginnings the rest of its haloed members are hot-housed and coached to the test to clear exams and groomed and nurtured like prima donna belles out to secure the next big catch.
I remember someone sharing that these scholar track candidates are given enough wardrobe allowances to buy six winter coats if they are studying in the US or UK. The joke was this: one minister was chatting with these chosen scholars during a networking tea session. He asked them what else can be done to groom and nurture talent in Singapore? Lo and behold, one so-called scholar told the minister that the government should provide horse riding lessons for scholarship holders like them. No wonder, one elite progeny told an ordinary out-of-work Singaporean to get out of her elite face and her MP daddy excused her diatribe as a frank assessment of reality.
Meritocracy in the Singapore context should be qualified. There is much opportunity hoarding amongst these groups and they return and earn favours by rooting for the members of their elite circles and keep others out by high barriers to entry. So, any qualified citizen who aspires to these offices must struggle to meet the criteria. And how can a child from a poor family with the father losing his job and the mother ill and depressed can enjoy a simple but balanced nutrition and calm mental disposition to study and make it in the hyper competitive school climate where the pace is nothing but frenetic? Can he or she afford the monthly fees of $700 to $1,000 charged by success-guaranteed tuition centers?
Just like the maxim of the tobacco companies–”the company will take good care of its own”, the PAP rewards its supporters excessively to garner loyalty and compliance.
Ask yourselves, does the former president SR Nathan really need a job at ISEAS? Can’t he write his books in the comfort of his home? Where is the level playing field? This is not only a discrimination but a moral failure, I rest my case.
@Baba,
Your observations are right about Malaysia. Yes, the bumis can be rent collectors. Second about the Chinese population dwindling to 22 percent–by the way many are in Singapore and they have become stooges to the PAP and are doing Singaporeans in. One case in point is Khaw Boon Wan–he only paid $8 remember? And he advised Singaporeans to send our aged parents to JB. Really nice. At least in JB, Singaporeans can still afford to put their parents in nursing homes–what can we do in Singapore as citizens? It is easy to fault others when we turn a blind eye to the mess in our own backyard.
And many of these erstwhile Chinese and Indian Malaysians and now Singaporeans still own many sizeable properties in Malaysia. But in Singapore, many citizens can’t even afford public housing while foreigners buy Sentosa Cove exclusive bungalows to the tune of 15 million dollars. Singapore has very little nature and natural spaces for citizens to rest and relax, yet the government can divvy this up and sell it to foreigners at premium prices. You mean the Singapore government cares for its citizens? What a joke!
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs will probably suffocate, their ideas or thought seeds find it hard to germinate in such environment. Thank goodness they are at the other less bothersome corner. Good to hear the Minister of Education is finally looking into some of the soft areas where our students are lacking. At least he has recognized the need for change. Next he should explore to encourage boldness and originality instead of living in the “Confucian” conformist mould mainly concerned with the sufficiency of the stomach. There will be some untidiness in the process. Is there is any guarantee that we can maintain this same sterile so called peaceful atmosphere? For how long? The Arab spring resulted from decades of crude bullying. Is there such a thing as subtle bullying?
Dear Godwin,
Some kind of assistance must be provided to those in the lower income bracket. Perhaps details can be worked out later when people agree on this foundational principle first.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Dr Syed Alwi 1 October 2011
Dear Godwin,
“In Singapore, meritocracy is based purely on academic performance. And the ones who can best deliver academic performance – are precisely those who can afford all those extras that I mentioned.
Sorry – but I don’t believe in meritocracy when there is NO level playing field. Over my dead body!”
Malaysia was so eager to start the so-called “level playing field” some 50 years ago when the Muslim Arabs, Indians and Indonesians banded together and called themselves “bumis” over the Red Indians (Orang Asli) to legislate for the freebies to get into the level playing field. Today sadly they are addicted and mind you intelligent people know prosperity doesn’t come the easy way.
Today, the only growth in Malaysia as anyone can see is but population GROWTH (more mouths to feed) from the Affirmative Policy (meant for the minorities and aborigines in the States) which continues shamefully for the still handicapped majority?
So what’s the solution?
Putting aside excuses let’s do some introspection.
Try China for a start.
China has to feed 1 300 000 000 people. 30 years ago the CCP and KMT were fighting a civil war. All the people were extremely poor and they had only the dark blue drabs over their skinny bodies.
Today in a short span of 3 decades she is the 2nd largest economy on the planet. Taikongnauts (unlike astranout Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor)walked in space last year and 2 days ago she launched a space lab into orbit. China today has the largest forex on the planet and the US is its number one debtor country. She swept the most GOLDS at the recent Olympics and the Asian Games, etc.
So DOCTOR Syed – The Chinese have to thank “expensive tution, enrichment programs, coaching and so on” that makes it all possible?
Come out of the box and do some honest introspection. Have we seriously looked at attitude and aptitude?
MARA in fact provided the best, free tuition to the Muslims in Malaysia since the Affirmative Policy started 5 decades ago lest you didn’t know. They even reserved 2 State universities exclusively for the best Muslim brains whilst sending hundreds of thousands of Muslims to the West for tertiary education over the years. Right?
Now, attitude is a function of culture and religion whilst attitude is basically one’s DNA. Right?
If one cares to look at others for excuses but not oneself first, then it’s going to be very difficult to overcome gravity.
But then who am I to characterise others’ inherent weaknesses. It’s none of my business.
Perhaps I now share this clip with you which I came across sometime ago. It is pretty telling and educational coming from a Malay himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4Xci2YSxqE&feature=related
A scholarship is an award of financial aid for a student to further education. Scholarships are awarded on various criteria usually reflecting the values and purposes of the donor or founder of the award……………………………
……………As defined in Wikipedia.
Students from poor families need financial “aid” not those from the rich circles.
Here students from the rich and famous, based on meritocracy are awarded scholarships when they edge out theIr competitors. Do they really need financial aid? Many poor but bright students lost out on account of a few “meritocratic” points. Shouldn’t scholarships be given to the poor deserving ones? Isnt this the right thing to do? Or is this more for ego and pride when the rich compare notes with each other about their children at cocktail parties?
“Some kind of assistance must be provided to those in the lower income bracket. Perhaps details can be worked out later…”
I get very wary when I read non-commital statements like that.
When you say “some kind of assistance”, what exactly are you thinking of?
When you say “must be provided”, who is to provide and who is to compel them to provide? Who will make sure that they ‘must’ provide?
Dear People,
Its obvious that the Malaysians living here have had a bad experience with the NEP in Malaysia. But Singapore is NOT Malaysia. And I myself have grave doubts about the NEP.
Until they themselves get trapped by the meritocracy myth in Singapore – they will not understand why Singaporeans have a problem with the PAP’s brand of meritocracy.
Their views are coloured by their bad experiences in Malaysia. But no matter – we Singaporeans must deliver our message to the PAP that the meritocracy they claim to practice – has become a plutocracy.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Dr Syed Alwi must stop putting the blame on others for not creating the “level playing field.”
I agree with Breakthough’s logic.
How much good money shd the State continue to set aside chasing the bad regardless of ethnicity in this globalsied competitive world that will only enhance cost? In economics resources are SCARCE.
Check out the ST. Needy pupils in Singapore get around $60 per head for makan from the ST pocket money. Miscellaneos fees are waived (Malays already get free school fees from primary schools to JCs). Text books, uniforms, etc., are also easily available foc for the asking. Even the Malay language can be used for counting into the polys, JCs and universities. Right?
Self-help organisations like CDAC, MENDAKI as well as schools give free tuition to weaker pupils.
The government deposited millions into MENDAKI for the community’s educational use.
The list goes on.
I think the drive and aspiration must come from within. External support there is for sure unlike elsewhere. Right?
Dear Jess,
Rubbish ! Do you know how much tuition costs ?
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
To Syed Alwi
How do you think then the Middle East (from where your ancestors came) should handle its apparently insurmountable economic and social problems today?
We know it’s not one but all the countries there are in deep trouble except for the oil rich Saudia Arabia. They are unemployed and in turmoil.
Your professional advice – Not “meritocracy” but “expensive tution, enrichment programs, coaching and so on”?
Dr Syed Alwi
Godwin
Others in the Net
Each country differs. Singapore today is different in it’s challenges as Malaysia. Malaysia is perhaps in terms of ethic and religious composition relatively more complex. Leaving that aside the issues of meritocracy is also relevant, but the interesting and vey thought provoking issue, if to equal the unequal is it justifiable?
That was the basic tenets of the bumi policy, leaving aside super bumis. And perhaps it’s implementation.
As provoking as it is, Aren’t Singaporeans saying the same. To protect the locals or indigenous, where do you stop.
Do you start at all.
The lessons are for all. See the struggles of Japan in minting it’s economic might and witness the western nations some with open policies.
What is the right balance especially with a population which hasj grown increasingly vocal.
Well that is the nature of all matters, but what is quite true is that meritocracy is quite different from capitalism and Singapore is not alone as it tries to find the balance.
While the net questions the concepts and practice of meritocracy, it would perhaps be relevant to note that many of leaders in the Elites speak sense, yes very basic sense.
However there are similarly misjudgments and errors like housing and healthcare and transport ( the later two being the subject of review).
However not all speak sense and perhaps that is the problem at hand. There are numerous articles from prominent Mandarins to academics and what perhaps would be interesting to see is a group of yes highly intelligent individuals restructure the economy while reflecting (hopefully) on the very requisites of nation building. And the attendant notions of fairness and falling through the cracks.
While Singaporeans may not find it acceptable, what is also equally true and commendable is the relative success.
Does this mean that the nation should be complacent and is this where we stop. Well the answer is the very one that drives many to
comment on the net. And will it lead to paralysis, it would not so long as people think and yes comment responsibly.
“There is much opportunity hoarding amongst these groups and they return and earn favours by rooting for the members of their elite circles and keep others out by high barriers to entry.”
This is so true. To be part of the admin service, not only is it about grades, you have to further pass psychometric tests and further IQ tests. Seriously, is this the best they can do to pick talent?
Someone I knew once questioned a Director in the civil service about this – about expanding their definition of talent. The Director’s answer was “If the system ain’t broke, why fix it?”.
Firstly, this is pure laziness. You’re saying there is no need to look for improvements. Secondly, questions of fairness in selection, the ethics behind it all, was never a consideration.
Can you believe that? Well the system is well and truly broken now. But by their own insular standards, the admin service folks keep patting themselves on the back congratulating each other and giving each other obscene, truly ridiculous pay packets.
Singapore deserves better than this.
“While Singaporeans may not find it acceptable, what is also equally true and commendable is the relative success.”
Yes, the only “relative” success you find now is success for the relatives of the elite.
I certainly don’t find that acceptable.
WOndered who males up the Council of Presidential Advisors?
The Council comprises six members and two alternate members.
Two members are appointed by the President at his discretion;
two are the Prime Minister’s nominees; one is the Chief Justice’s nominee;
and one is the nominee of the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.
One alternate member is appointed by the President at his discretion while the other is appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Chief Justice and Chairman of Public Service Commission.
In most other socities, we would have been informed, who nominated whom. but…
Dear Best Of Both Worlds,
Why are you bringing up about the Arabs ? Not relevant ! Its NOT for me to tell other countries how to run their show.
My concern is Singapore. Stick to the topic and don’t change the subject !
When you take into account the reality of tuition – then its very clear that the rich have a huge headstart over the poor in Singapore.
So how ?
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
So why can’t Bill Gates or Steve Jobs survive if they chose to stay here?
Singapore wouldn’t be tops in this and that INTERNATIONALLY like world table-tennis or international mathematics & science competitions if the environment here is unsound to grow such talents. Will Eduardo Saverin (Facebook) or Jet Li (international superstar) for example chosen to reside here?
=======
who contributed the above is a, “JOKER” !
Dear Syed Alwi,
I looked up this blog provided in a thread –
http://kudaranggi.blogspot.com/2008/09/antara-pendatang-dan-penumpang.html#!/2008/09/antara-pendatang-dan-penumpang.html
But it’s in Malay. One powerful English statement by this Imran person tells it all i.e.
“KUDA RANGGI – You can take a horse to (the) water but you can’t make . . . . ”
Certainly worth meditating on it?
I remember watching Dr Mahathir literally breaking down at the podium when he announced his retirement from active politics after 22 years for not being able to change the Malays’ negative attitude despite the decades long discriminatory Affirmative Policy against the non-Muslims (Incidentally, Malaysia’s levelling up policy is to level down the others).
Perhaps Dr Syed Alwi “expensive tution, enrichment programs, coaching and so on” might do the trick.
Care to elaborate with emphirical and some down to earth examples in the region or elsewhere practising such simplistic approaches in the way forward without compromising or jeopodising the nation’s economy and human capital eventually?
People of the south seas are by a nature laid-back, easygoing and more relax. The natural environment shaped them. They now found themselves and are thrown into this situation where they have to compete. Thats a long story. Now the reality.
Meritocracy should be practiced in a practical and socially acceptable manner. It could be used as a tool to promote harmony amongst the races. It should not be carried out strictly based on academic results. There must be some adjustments. Meritocracy could be made use of to bring the races together. The best from the nation, the best from amongst the Malays and Indians and other minority groups that meets the criteria, should be given chances for scholarships and promotions. In a multi-racial society this will bring about greater harmony when you see a spread of people from various races proportionately represented in successful positions in all areas. The quota in HDB estates is such an exercise. They will be a source of pride and role models for their communities and will be the catalysts to spur them further forward. Its human nature. This will benefit the country. Scholarships should only be given to students who need financial assistance not to those who could afford. The rich can take care of themselves.
If as a result of rigid meritocracy, and only members of the dominant race somehow gets all the goodies, will this be good in the long run?
Dear Parameswara & RT,
Sorry but your efforts to change the subject does NOT impress me or the other Singaporeans.
We are talking about Singapore and NOT Malaysia nor the Malays.
In Singapore – even the Chinese majority have doubts about meritocracy since there is no level playing field.
When you do not earn enough to pay for tuition etc – then your kids are placed at a very great disadvantage. Doesn’t matter what race you are.
The issue before us here – is the question of meritocracy being practiced in a society with a large income gap. A meritocracy which is based almost 100% on academic performance.
So please stick to the issue of Singapore and don’t try to change the subject into something about Malaysia etc. Don’t try to pull a fast one by making this clear cut issue into a racial issue. No one is going to fall for that trap and trick of yours.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Nope, there is absolutely no intention whatsoever to trap readers in this discussion along racial lines. I am surprised that you mention it at all. What we are discussing here are the realities that exist and relevant issues. It is unavoidable that comparisons are made. Don’t tell me you have never heard this oft- repeated remarks being uttered ” what do you expect staying in this society”. What do you make out from that? What do they mean? We are discussing things in a rational and open fashion. Isn’t his something to do with the your main point about the absence of a level playing field, elaboration by readers from their own viewpoints.
Malaysia was so eager to start the so-called “level playing field” some 50 years ago when the Muslim Arabs, Indians and Indonesians banded together and called themselves “bumis” over the Red Indians (Orang Asli) to legislate for the freebies to get into the level playing field. Today sadly they are addicted and mind you intelligent people know prosperity doesn’t come the easy way
========
but then you do not understand the religion, it’s part of the matrix of life in all islamic countries.
the religion is the one that brings the whole pop slow to adapt, look at pakistan, indonesia, middle east, they do not need or want modernism or fast track like europe, usa or asia.
the people and the gov wants a laid back lifestyle, so this is the price they are willing to pay, to follow their god/religion, the teachings.
if the chinese and indians wants better, they will need to migrate, and a lot of quotas are given to the bumis, slow learners because the gov/ religious wants it, so that people will not question the gov, given the corruption.
but the price of pop growth and no jobs will backfire later on, when the baby boomers come of age, will malaysia be what it is today, peaceful, hell, no.
so beware of the extremist movement next decade, from malaysia, indonesia.
Meritocracy is tool used by the Lii Family, the PAP Elite and the Rich to protect and grow their power and wealth.
Aithough few poor/middle class benefit from it, but it’s against the interest of majority.
Poor singaporeans, all fooled so many yeras.
Dear People,
My problem with meritocracy in Singapore is the following :
1) We have a large income divide
2) Academic performance (mostly exams) is used as a major (if not the only) criteria – to gauge merit
3) Those who can afford – will pay top dollar for any and all the extras that their children need – in order to excel academically. These extras would include tuition, enrichment programs, coaching (both in sports and in academics) and so on.
4) But the less fortunate cannot afford these extras.
5) Therefore the children from the lower income bracket are systrematically at a grave disadvantage in Singapore’s so-called meritocracy.
6) Something must therefore be done about this. Otherwise what we practice in Singapore is not meritocracy – but instead its a plutocracy – rule of the rich and wealthy.
7) This systematic and structural bias against the less fortunate – creates a very privileged “elite class” and stifles social mobility.
8) I see a two prong attack on this problem. First some kind of help must be offered to those in the lower income bracket. Secondly the education system must rely less on examination results. CCA should also account for something substantial in the students yearly performance.
9) All these issues have nothing to do with race or religion or even Malaysia. Those who bring up these excuses – are just trying to avoid the points that I raised above. A red herring !
Best Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Prostiticians can get away with things throughout history because majority in this world are not the smartest based on Darwinism.
Monkeys like to see monkeys do.
They are not smart.
They follow the crowd.
They want to be led.
They are fools.
They are weak and thus self-preservatory.
They are weak and thus Kia Su.
They are useless and thus Kia Si.
I challenge you to prove that you know what is Meritocracy.
When born to a powerful and rich family, you have already inherited INEQUALITY.
Is there MERIT in InEquality?
If meritocracy can be based on Inequality, what then is merit? Your father rich man thus you drive a porsche and buy degrees , does this mean you earn your wealth and degrees because you have MERIT?
Or is it bullshit?
Meritocracy is a Joke …just recently two sons of elites in the civil service were given admission into an elite government independent school…. they did not even have the entry marks!
There are other boys who scored better than these two but they did Not gain entry….Their fathers were not Elites!
What do we have to say of this?
There has been a lot of muddying the waters over the definition of Meritocracy. Let’s look at the wikipedia definition of Meritocracy:
“Meritocracy, in the first, most administrative sense, is a system of government or other administration (such as business administration) wherein appointments and responsibilities are objectively assigned to individuals based upon their “merits”, namely intelligence, credentials, and education,[1] determined through evaluations or examinations.”
In the pure definition of Meritocracy, it DOES NOT matter how you come to embody those merits, just that you do. The best, brightest and hopefully those with the best character and spirit of public service will be appointed to government.
The call to ‘level the playing field’ is quite silly, in my opinion. All men are born UNEQUAL. Then they grow up in UNEQUAL environments. In spite of this, some do, against all odds, rise above the rest to shine. Please do not belittle their achievements.
What we need to fight is nepotism and cronyism. These are the real enemies of Meritocracy. It means favouring people who have special connections over the best people for the job.
I leave you to judge whether Singapore is really a Meritocracy at all levels of the government :)
If meritocract is win at all cost then there is nothing nobel about it. In fact then it is very evil.
Dear Panache,
Lets hope bad luck falls upon you and you wind up being poor in Singapore. I really wonder if you will still say the same thing.
Those who simply ignore the plight of the poor have lost a portion of their humanity….
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Dear Dr Syed Alwi,
I would like to respond to the points you raised:
1) We have a large income divide
- this has nothing to do with meritocracy and more to do with capitalism
2) Academic performance (mostly exams) is used as a major (if not the only) criteria – to gauge merit
- academic performance is the most objective test of merit we have; the more we deviate from examination results as a measure of merit, the more ‘loopholes’ we introduce to the system so allow influential people to sneak less worthy or capable candicates into government
3) Those who can afford – will pay top dollar for any and all the extras that their children need – in order to excel academically. These extras would include tuition, enrichment programs, coaching (both in sports and in academics) and so on.
- all men are born UNEQUAL. nothing, no one and definitely no government can do anything to change that fact. men are only EQUAL in the eyes of the Law.
4) But the less fortunate cannot afford these extras.
- see (3)
5) Therefore the children from the lower income bracket are systrematically at a grave disadvantage in Singapore’s so-called meritocracy.
- see (3). yes, i agree with you but i have also seen a lot of really hard-working students from poor families who have succeeded academically. in fact, being poor is a very good motivation to study hard, more so than tuitions.
6) Something must therefore be done about this. Otherwise what we practice in Singapore is not meritocracy – but instead its a plutocracy – rule of the rich and wealthy.
- yes, agree that plutocracy seems to be on the rise because of higher minister salaries and overly pro-business policies, but this is due to cronyism, the enemy of meritocracy.
7) This systematic and structural bias against the less fortunate – creates a very privileged “elite class” and stifles social mobility.
- i see this as an attack on plutocracy, not meritocracy
8) I see a two prong attack on this problem. First some kind of help must be offered to those in the lower income bracket. Secondly the education system must rely less on examination results. CCA should also account for something substantial in the students yearly performance.
- no, the problem is cronyism. the above solutions you propose in fact weaken meritocracy further.
9) All these issues have nothing to do with race or religion or even Malaysia. Those who bring up these excuses – are just trying to avoid the points that I raised above. A red herring !
- agree, but malaysia is a good example of a non-meritocratic system. singapore has succeeded thus far because of meritocracy. unfortunately, this fundamental value of our society has been eroded in recent years. if we don’t reverse this trend, singapore will go into decline.
8) I see a two prong attack on this problem. First some kind of help must be offered to those in the lower income bracket. Secondly the education system must rely less on examination results. CCA should also account for something substantial in the students yearly performance.
I ask again, Dr Syed: what form of help, and who will provide that help? Who will compel them to help?
Adding CCA to the equation doesn’t solve the “problem” that the playing ground is not level, does it? If rich kids can have tuition for academic subjects, can’t they equally afford tuition for CCA subjects?
“plutocracy seems to be on the rise because of higher minister salaries and overly pro-business policies, but this is due to cronyism, the enemy of meritocracy.”
I disagree.
Meritocracy will by and large look like plutocracy because the rich are able to give their children a headstart in the academic life, which will in turn mean that they will have a better chance at success in a meritocratic system; that’s something you cannot avoid completely – if you cannot give your children a better stab at life, why bother making money?
Meritocracy is a safeguard against plutocracy – it prevents people from buying success for their children outright.
I agree that nepotism and cronyism are the biggest enemies we need to guard against, followed by calls for “leveling of the playing filed” and affirmative action.
Dear Panache & Godwin,
1) Meritocracy exacerbates the problems of capitalism
2) I totally reject your philosophy about being born and raised unequal. In case you don’t know – Singapore in 2011 is NOT Nazi Germany of 1941. Eugenics has long been discredited. Sorry but I believe in compassion towards the less fortunate. I reject your brand of dog-eat-dog meritocracy as being self-serving to the rich.
3) Let the Opposition present a comprehensive plan to address the shortcomings of the system – if the PAP is still in denial mode. Simple as that !
4) Stop using Malaysia and racial issues as a bogeyman and a red herring.
5) Because of the income divide and because of the emphasis on academic performance ONLY as a gauge of merit – the so-called meritocracy here has actually become a plutocracy. I reject your claim of meritocracy when the system itself is heavily biased against the poor.
6) Those who ignore the plight of the poor have lost part of their humanity…….
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
1) Meritocracy exacerbates the problems of capitalism
What? What? So what system is preferable? One that punishes merit?
5) … the system itself is heavily biased against the poor.
No, the system is not what disadvantages the poor: being poor disadvantages the poor.
Being poor is a disadvantage. That is a fact of life. That is why people don’t want to be poor.
The poor will always be disadvantaged.
I agree with you that the poor need help. My question to you is: who will help them? Who will compel those who are supposed to help them to help?
The talk of “helping” and “leveling the playing field” sound noble, but when you come to the practicals, it’s the same old dirty politics of envy and holding the rich guilty for all the woes of the poor.
Dear Dr Syed Alwi,
In response to your latest post:
1) Meritocracy exacerbates the problems of capitalism
- this is a baseless claim. please substantiate. would you rather have fools in government then?
2) I totally reject your philosophy about being born and raised unequal. In case you don’t know – Singapore in 2011 is NOT Nazi Germany of 1941. Eugenics has long been discredited. Sorry but I believe in compassion towards the less fortunate. I reject your brand of dog-eat-dog meritocracy as being self-serving to the rich.
- perhaps you are a communist? the only way in which a government can enforce equality for everyone is to strip away all wealth. even then, some babies will be smarter than others. please face the reality.
3) Let the Opposition present a comprehensive plan to address the shortcomings of the system – if the PAP is still in denial mode. Simple as that !
- please let them, but i hope their plans would address real issues, not imagined ones.
4) Stop using Malaysia and racial issues as a bogeyman and a red herring.
- fact: you cannot not talk about malaysian politics and racial issues in one breath. rather sad and i am glad that PAP got this one right.
5) Because of the income divide and because of the emphasis on academic performance ONLY as a gauge of merit – the so-called meritocracy here has actually become a plutocracy. I reject your claim of meritocracy when the system itself is heavily biased against the poor.
- again, i cannot understand your stubborn association of meritocracy with plutocracy. they are very different ideas.
6) Those who ignore the plight of the poor have lost part of their humanity…….
- no one is ignoring the plight of the poor (except for Godwin, haha). the plight of the poor is simply a separate issue from meritocracy and bringing it into the discussion simply muddies the waters.
“- no one is ignoring the plight of the poor (except for Godwin, haha).”
Gah, no fair.
I am not ignoring the plight of the poor, I merely disagree with the solutions some people seem to hint at (but will not elaborate) to solving the problem.
Meritocracy is the best help for the poor (which is not to say that we have a perfect meritocratic system devoid of nepotism and cronyism here…).
Oh please,
Lets not split hairs about meritocracy. In the real world, there is no meritocracy. If you are born with a silver spoon in your mouth, you enjoy certain advantages. Remember, Tony Tan and the “NS” cushy arrangements for his three sons! The genetic dice is not meritocratic, or is it? Some are born intelligent and whichever way we argue, these individuals given the right training and opportunity will thrive and succeed. The more important question is–should we then just ignore others who don’t fit or live up to the national definition of success?
At least the Malaysians are honest in their unfair discrimination, anyone worth his or her salt will know that the bumis are advantaged with affirmative action and there is much bellyaching about how they don’t succeed, but really achievement is not only about drive and ambition, it is also about talent, opportunities and a conducive environment. We poured in millions in the biomedical field–but the so-called “whales” scientists still flew the coop citing administrative roadblocks over quick success and rewards.
But in Singapore, there is much political and intellectual dishonesty–while claiming to be meritocratic–many ordinary citizens are marginalised, the elites are advantaged by networks, opportunity hoarding and priviledged knowledge to succeed.
One example–look at Kafu and Kopi Tiam, the food is nothing to sing about, yet it is run by children of former coffee shop owners with swanky degrees from overseas universities who turned small business into franchised monopolies. In the good old days, if a family had a great recipe for fried hokkien noodles, they set up a stall and thrived, but today many are forced or subsumed by Kafu or Kopi Tiam because of high overheads and fixed costs. The result–many foreigners are brought in with meagre pay to mix the ingredients and serve them as vintage dishes. The end result, the customer pays $4 for an inedible bowl of noodles and the heritage recipes are lost through cut-throat competition and spiralling costs.
Do not point fingers at the Malaysians–Singaporeans are marginalised in their country of birth. Have our salaries kept up with the rising costs? Are Singaporeans considered for jobs that they qualify for or are they ignored to bring in cheaper foreigners who are economic migrants and they save every penny to buy property ot support their families from their home countries? What is the Gini co-efficient–the gap between the rich and the poor in Singapore? What is the government suggesting that we Singaporeans leave for distant shores? Please, it is convenient to bash our neighbors but let’s set out to remove the beam from our eyes. Meritocracy–my foot!
Read this about meritocracy:
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw06/0610FEE3.HTM