Meritocracy's hidden danger

Thu, Aug 21, 2008

The Straits Times
Zakir Hussain
http://news.asiaone.com/print/News/Education/Story/A1Story20080821-83525.html
WHEN I first read about communism in a youth magazine at the age of 11, I though
t it was a fantastic idea.
I was struck by the simplicity of Marx's slogan - "From each according to his ab
ility, to each according to his needs" - believing it to be the fairest way of a
llocating, and rewarding, work.
Of course, I was shot down by my friends, and understandably so, for communists
were evil, even in 1990. Their ideology was being discredited as the Soviet Unio
n, the world's first communist state, was disintegrating.
As I grew older and learnt more about how the world worked, a better slogan emer
ged, even if it didn't have quite the same ring.
This was: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability.
"
I still believe that this is, by and large, a fair way for a society to organise
itself.
Most people know this principle as meritocracy, a system in which social status
and pedigree matter less than merit in determining who gets how much or what.
Singapore has made meritocracy a key principle of governance, giving everyone as
similar a chance as possible to stretch himself, in school and at work, in the
hope that so long as he is willing to work hard, he will succeed.
To help everyone get to the same starting line, the Government has made educatio
n universal, with bursaries and scholarships readily available for those with ta
lent but without the finances.
A good number of Singaporeans from the poorest of backgrounds have made it to th
e highest ranks of their respective professions within the space of one generati
on.
But such mobility seems more elusive today, especially when there are signs poin
ting to a growing divide in incomes between those at the top end and those at th
e bottom.
The question that begs asking is: Will meritocracy, at least as we understand it
today, still be an ideal that finds broad support among people here - or will i
t go the way of communism?
After all, the man who coined the word meritocracy 50 years ago, British sociolo
gist and Labour Party bigwig Michael Young, did so to mock the idea of a society
run purely on merit.
Young invented the term in his satirical work - The Rise Of The Meritocracy, 187
0-2033: An Essay On Education And Equality.
A sociological fantasy, the slim book portrays a sinister, highly stratified soc
iety organised around intelligence-testing and intensive educational selection.

A system of rigid tests determines one's social standing, with those scoring hig
hest filling the most important positions and reaping the most rewards. As a res
ult, a strict hierarchy of merit is created and maintained.
Over time, however, what appears to be a fair and just system becomes rigid and
ruthless. By 2033, Britain has come to be governed by a brilliant elite of 5 per
cent of the population, who feel their social inferiors are also inferior in ed
ucation and intelligence. The test-based education system, it turns out, is simp
ly the centuries-old class system in sheep's clothing.
Lacking access to the best schools, underprivileged children routinely do badly
in examinations. The disadvantaged thus remain at the bottom of the social ladde
r, unable to break out of the poverty trap.
This outcome leads to widespread grievances and uprisings against an elite that
feels superior to, and regards with contempt, all those outside it.
While the book may be fiction, views such as these are not.
In America, for instance, there are those who regard the poor as incapable of be
ing economically productive, and worse, fully responsible for their own predicam
ent.
Understandably, it can be tempting for those who are more fortunate to jump to s
uch conclusions about the "others".
But danger lies that way. In a paper published this year, Assistant Professor Ke
nneth Paul Tan of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy argues that Singapore
's meritocratic system "has been practised so extremely that it is starting to s
how signs of becoming a victim of its own success".
"As the economic and political elite are rewarded with larger prizes, a vast and
visible inequality of outcomes will replace the incentive effect with a sense o
f resentment, helplessness, social disengagement, and even envy among those who
perceive themselves as systematically disadvantaged," he notes.
Dr Tan argues that there are factors brought about by globalisation which can le
ad to the unravelling of this meritocracy, notably a yawning income gap where hi
ghly mobile professionals command First World pay while less-skilled citizens ha
ve to compete with low-wage workers from the region.
When these low wages seem intractable, people find it harder to have confidence
in the system. The Internet provides a ready avenue for them to articulate their
grievances openly, and the country's openness to foreign talent has made some f
eel that they have fewer prospects, and unfairly so, in their own country.
The Government will try to manage these factors, but it will not be easy.
In recent years, government leaders have cautioned people against succumbing to
the politics of envy because it will drive a wedge in society.
To their credit, officials have also attempted to refine the definition of merit
and patch holes that an emphasis on academic merit may have created.
In education, for instance, the meanings of talent and success have been broaden
ed. There are now schools to nurture talent in sports and the arts, and diploma
and degree courses in such fields as digital media and technology, and the creat
ive fields such as design and fashion.
To help the lower-income group, there are schemes like the Workfare Income Suppl

ement aimed at boosting the wages of the bottom 20 per cent of workers.
These come on top of bursaries for children from lower-income homes as well as a
range of measures to help the poor.
Entry to the upper echelons of public service is far from closed to those from l
ower-income families. A good number of public sector scholarships still go to st
udents from poorer backgrounds, even if those from better-off homes are rather o
ver-represented.
Where 80 per cent of people live in HDB flats, only some 47 per cent of Public S
ervice Commission scholarship recipients this year do. Some 27 per cent are in p
rivate, non-landed property, and the other 26 per cent live in landed property.
It is a distortion former A*Star chief Philip Yeo hinted at recently when he sai
d scholarships could "uplift" students from poorer families, and that if two app
licants had equally exceptional grades, he would award a scholarship to the one
from a humbler household.
The Public Service Commission, for its part, has maintained that it awards schol
arships "strictly on merit, regardless of family background", and if there were
two equally deserving applicants, both would be offered scholarships.
This emphasis on merit and fair play has helped to ensure racial and religious h
armony because minorities feel they have an equal stake and equal chances in thi
s country, even if imperfections exist.
But if those who have gained from this system turn up their noses at those who l
ag behind, meritocracy as we know it today will not be the only victim.
Disdain for the poor is the hidden danger that lurks in meritocracy.
This article was first published in The Straits Times on Aug 15, 2008.