Meritocracy and Singapore

Recognize first that meritocracy is the cornerstone of success in Singapore, without which we would not be where we are today. It is about appointing the best or most competent man for the job, esp top jobs, the alternative of which is cronyism, nepotism and corruption (i.e. u get the job cos u r related to someone in high positions or u bribe that person). In manpower-scarce Singapore, it ensures that the limited human resource available here is efficiently mobilised and distributed to allow for the best people to rise and steer the country forward (which is why Singapore has a zero-tolerance policy towards corruption and the govt guards its incorruptibility image so zealously) . The relative fairness of meritocracy also helps to placate the multi-racial society here (as no single race is favoured over another) as well as makes it attractive to foreign talents who are assured that they can rise if they possess the requisite skills. Incidentally, Singapore separated from Malaysia in 1965 because Malaysia wanted to pursue a race-based system that favours the Malays (think the New Economic Policy or the Bumiputera Policy) whereas Singapore opted for meritocracy which is race-blind.

Having ascertained the role of meritocracy in contributing to Singapore’s success, u must also know that meritocracy is now starting to create problems for us. It is starting to create a social divide as those already up there due to meritocracy would confer advantages to their children, hence increasing the chances of their children maintaining in the upper echelons in the future. This will block the rise of those at the lower strata of society as they have little access to these privileges enjoyed by their peers at the top. A useful piece of  statistics to take away with from article 2 is that 6 out of 10 students in top schools live in private property – a disturbingly high figure, given that only 2 out of 10 among Singapore’s population do so.  Having such a high concentration of rich students in top schools here means they will go on to get good jobs in the future that will secure their place in the top ranks of society. Education’s role as a social leveller is seriously thrown into question here.
Realise that this social divide is not just about a widening income gap. but also the creation of an elite group at the top that does not interact and is out of touch with the needs of those at the bottom. It is unfortunate that it is usually the elite group which forms the govt, leaving those at the bottom to be the disenfranchised lot whose needs are not met. It is this festering discontentment at the bottom that led to the eruption of the Arab Spring in 2011, causing widespread social and political instability. 

But the articles also go to show that govt is cognizant of this and is introducing measures to mitigate these downsides of meritocracy to ensure that it does not aggravate the social divide. Noteworthy is the point mentioned in article 3 that the definition of what constitutes 'merit' has been widened to give more recognition to those in the arts and sporting arena so that they have a chance to rise up as well.....At the end of article 2b (see the two ticked sections), two unique features of Singapore are also raised to show how, unlike other societies, Singaore is actually in a better position to restore the inequilibrium brought about by meritocracy
In  nutshell, recognise that meritocracy can work both for and against Singapore, depending on whether actions are taken to mitigate the side effects effectively…..

Sample Qn: In your society, how far is equality for all a reality? (Cambridge 2012)

 

article 1

 

 

 

 





article 2a

article 2b

article 3