Meritocracy and elitism
BRYAN CHEANG
JUNE 23, 20142 2 4.7K VIEWS
Meritocracy is Singapore’s core governing value. We even teach that in Social Studies. While most of us generally think that it is a good principle, some insist that
meritocracy promotes elitism. This is in fact the argument that journalist Chua Mui Hoong made in 2006 after the infamous Wee Shu Min incident. There was a debate on whether or not Singapore had an elitist system, and whether meritocracy was to blame for it.
Her article was entitled
“How meritocracy leads to intellectual elitism”. Her main position is that “Singapore is such an elitist society precisely because of meritocracy”. The logic she used runs as follows:
“Our ethos of meritocracy condones, indeed encourages, another form of snobbery: intellectual elitism. Singapore’s merit-based system hinges almost entirely on the meritocracy of academic achievements. Do well in school, and there’s a good chance the kid from a poverty-stricken background can break out of the poverty cycle. When education becomes such an important social leveller and vehicle for social mobility, is it any wonder that intellectual ability becomes imbued with such positive attributes that it nearly becomes associated with a moral virtue?? Subliminally, we imbibe the message that intellectual achievement is not only a mark of mental acuity, but it is also a reflection of character, strength of purpose, dedication, of moral virtue. This is not to say that we are so naive as to assume that those who get As are more saintly than those who fail their examinations. But I think many of us do assume that the A-getters are more disciplined, more hardworking, more driven to excel, more deserving of reward, than those who get Cs. And so academic achievement becomes conflated with character and moral attributes.”
To put it simply, she believes that our meritocracy is linked to academic achievements such that merit=academic ability. And because we link academic ability=moral virtues, we then conclude that merit=possession of moral qualities.
This issue of elitism is a serious one that demands our attention. In fact, very recently,
Former Civil Servant Ngiam Tong Dow claims that the PAP government is elitist and has lost touch with ordinary Singaporeans. Today, many Singaporeans decry the PAP for “running the country like a business” and for “putting profits first”. All these are claimed to be in direct opposition to the public interest; only elite interests are served.
True meritocracy implies limited government
I strongly believe that meritocracy is indeed a sound principle to uphold in society, provided that it is understood and conceptualised properly. If meritocracy is established on free and fair competition amongst individuals in society, then ...in a liberal society; in such a society no one gets special privileges, everyone competes fairly and equally. True meritocracy implies liberalism.
Narrow meritocracy
Singapore’s meritocracy is what I would call a “narrow meritocracy”, where ‘merit’ is defined specifically by the government. ... Because of this, those who possess a specific type of ‘merit’, in this case, ‘academic merit’, are singled out over others for special praise.
Broad meritocracy
In ‘broad meritocracy’, the government does not define merit. This is the type of meritocracy ...Consumers perceived their ‘merit’ and thus ‘voted’ for them with their dollars. This is real meritocracy.
For more, read “The Elite Under Capitalism” by Ludwig von Mises,
here.
Evolving Meritocracy?
Due to concerns about meritocracy, some have said that we need to modify it to better fit current challenges. One such view proposes an
“evolving meritocracy”, which essentially seeks a more watered-down version to be ‘balanced’ with more affirmative action by the government, so as to resolve the “different starting points” that individuals start off in life from. ... it is irresponsible to think otherwise.
[Link to article]
https://kentridgecommon.com/meritocracy-and-elitism/
