Meritocracy's Hidden Danger

Section: Review – Insight
By: ZAKIR HUSSAIN
Publication: The Straits Times 15/08/2008
Page: A33

WHEN I first read about communism in a youth magazine at the age of 11, I thought it was a fantastic idea.I was struck by the simplicity of Marx's slogan – "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" – believing it to be the fairest way of allocating, 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 Union, the world's first communist state, was disintegrating.

As I grew older and learnt more about how the world worked, a better slogan emerged, 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 education universal, with bursaries and scholarships readily available for those with talent but without the finances.
A good number of Singaporeans from the poorest of backgrounds have made it to the highest ranks of their respective professions within the space of one generation.

But such mobility seems more elusive today, especially when there are signs pointing to a growing divide in incomes between those at the top end and those at the 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 it go the way of communism?

After all, the man who coined the word meritocracy 50 years ago, British sociologist 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, 1870-2033: An Essay on Education and Equality.

A sociological fantasy, the slim book portrays a sinister, highly stratified society organised around intelligence-testing and intensive educational selection. A system of rigid tests determines one's social standing, with those scoring highest filling the most important positions and reaping the most rewards. As a result, 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 education and intelligence. The test-based education system, it turns out, is simply 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 ladder, 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 being economically productive, and worse, fully responsible for their own predicament.

Understandably, it can be tempting for those who are more fortunate to jump to such conclusions about the "others".

But danger lies that way.

In a paper published this year, Assistant Professor Kenneth 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 show 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 of 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 lead to the unravelling of this meritocracy, notably a yawning income gap where highly mobile professionals command First World pay while less-skilled citizens have 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 feel 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 broadened. 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 creative fields such as design and fashion.To help the lower-income group, there are schemes like the Workfare Income Supplement 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 lower-income families. A good number of public sector scholarships still go to students from poorer backgrounds, even if those from better-off homes are rather over-represented.

Where 80 per cent of people live in HDB flats, only some 47 per cent of Public Service Commission scholarship recipients this year do. Some 27 per cent are in private, 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 said scholarships could "uplift" students from poorer families, and that if two applicants 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 scholarships "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 harmony because minorities feel they have an equal stake and equal chances in this country, even if imperfections exist.

But if those who have gained from this system turn up their noses at those who lag 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.

***

In the above article, Mr Zakir Hussain suggests that meritocracy’s hidden danger is disdain for the poor. Mr Hussain goes on to expound on the nature of meritocracy, and puts it into the context of Singapore. A significant point that he brings up is the fact that while 80 per cent of people live in HDB flats, only some 47 per cent of Public Service Commission scholarship recipients do. This questions the meritocratic system that Singapore adopts, whether it remains true to the notion of meritocracy.

Meritocracy is, in short, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his ability”, as Mr Hussain puts it so aptly and concisely. The etymology of the word itself suggests that it is a very much ability-based system, where benefits are awarded based on the merit of the individual. As much as I believe that meritocracy is suitable with reference to Singapore, I cannot help but wonder: is meritocracy truly the best policy?

A fact that one cannot avoid is that a meritocratic system cannot be as flawless and perfect as the idea of meritocracy is. For one, meritocracy (the idea, that is) inherently assumes that all individuals will be able to be judged solely based on merit, and the social background of his or her family will not have any influence on the individual’s chances to success. However, this assumption is flawed as the social background and economical status of a family will inevitably have some impact on the individual. Take for example a pupil from a wealthy family. This pupil will probably receive tuition and be able to purchase assessment books, guide books and a personal computer for his studies. In contrast, a poor pupil will not be able to afford tuition, assessment books, guide books or a computer. Instead, he may even be required to help his family by working part time during the school holidays or after school, hence affecting his studies. As can be clearly seen, the social background and economical status of a family does have significant influence over an individual’s chances of success, hence a meritocratic system cannot be ideal.

A natural question would thus be to ask: will the meritocratic system result in a re-enactment of the poverty cycle? Unfortunately, this re-enactment is highly likely. For example, children from poorer backgrounds will have less chances of success in school, and as such, their careers. In all likelihood, they would not be able to have a high earning power. This will result in their children too coming from a poor background, hence creating a cycle. This cycle will be detrimental to the society of a country, such as widening of the income gap.

Of course, dissenters would argue that some people, such as the renowned author cum now-millionaire J K Rowling, as well as local sporting hero Feng Tianwei, who have scripted some of the most compelling rag-to-riches stories. This would not have been possible had the system not been a meritocratic one. I whole-heartedly accept this argument, but would pose yet another question to the supporters of this stand: if these people are but a few leaves in the forest, is this all that meritocracy can help us?

However, meritocracy admittedly has its advantageous. As Mr Hussain suggests, the emphasis on merit is extremely important in Singapore as it ensures racial and religious harmony because minorities feel they have an equal stake and equal chances in this country, even if imperfections exist. As Singapore is a melting pot of races and cultures, such a meritocratic system would undoubtedly create social stability.

In conclusion, meritocracy may have its advantages, but numerous questions still cloud the meritocratic system in Singapore. While true meritocracy is nigh impossible to achieve, much work still needs to be done in order for our meritocratic system to be as close to true meritocracy as possible.

Until then, meritocracy cannot be fairly said to be the “best policy”.

Can Democracy Create Stability?

Can democracy truly create stability in a society? Many have viewed democracy as the silver bullet to end all problems that society faces, believing that, as democracy takes the collective opinion of the masses, everyone will be content. However, I beg to differ as I feel that one should approach the topic at hand with its deserved scepticism, and question the underlying assumptions behind the assertion.

For one, the assertion inherently assumes that democracy would definitely result in the satisfaction of the citizens. Although democracy does assume the collective opinion of everyone, we cannot deny that it is, in fact, individuals that make up a society. As all individuals are unique, it would thus be naïve to think that everyone will agree with the view of the majority. For example, in a country plagued with racial discrimination between the majority and minority races, decisions made democratically would inevitably swing in favour of the majority race. In such a scenario, the minority race would definitely be frustrated by the discrimination evident in their society, as a direct result of democracy. This could potentially result in political unrest and instability in the society. Such an example shows how democracy is potentially hazardous and cannot totally be depended on to create stability in any given society.

Another neglected underlying assumption is that the citizens are receptive to change and are prepared for a switch to democracy. Whereas in reality, a change in political system cannot guarantee the citizens experience the full merits of the system as they adapt to the change. For instance, many would have thought changing the Iraqi political system to a democracy would have brought stability to a country ruled under Saddam Hussein’s iron fist, or at least seen a distinct improvement from the past. However, Iraq was unable to adjust to the change, resulting in increased civil violence, political breakdown, as well as major disruptions to the country’s economy and infrastructure. Recently, according to the 2007 Failed States index, Iraq was ranked as the world’s second most unstable country, bringing doubts as to whether democracy, given all its merits, can really create stability in a society. As can be seen from this example, the society’s background influences its ability to adapt to the change in political system, which in turn also plays a big role in determining whether democracy can create stability in a society.

However, it would be unjust to write off democracy as a viable system to create stability. In countries with a homogenous population, democracy can be effective as it reflects the views of everyone in the society. For example, in Switzerland, where pure democracy is practised, has one of the most stable economies in the world and is a stable society. Kris Kobach, an American law professor, suggests in his book entitled The Referendum: Direct Democracy In Switzerland that Switzerland enjoys tandem successes socially and economically, as a result of its political system. In this case, one sees that due to the political situation and social background of the society in question, democracy can, indeed, create stability.

Of course, a natural question to ask would be “Under what circumstances does democracy create stability?” I believe there is no straightforward set of guidelines to follow, and there never will be. General criteria that should be considered would be the social background and culture of the society, which would encompass the readiness of the people in accepting democracy. Even so, the full implications of implanting democracy in the society cannot be predetermined. For example, many believed that bringing democracy to Iraq would solve many problems, whereas in reality, it created new ones instead. This shows the unpredictability of events, which translates into uncertainty in deciding whether democracy can really create stability in a society.

In conclusion, there is no clear-cut answer as to whether democracy can create stability in a society. As evidenced above, democracy has created stability in some societies, and failed to do so in others. However, what is clear is that the statement does not always hold true. As to individual instances, we can only let time decide.

The Smoking Ban in Singapore

More no-smoking areas from next year

Section: Home
By: TANIA TAN
Publication: The Straits Times 01/03/2008
Page: H11


NO BUTTS about it: Starting next year, smokers will have fewer places to light up.

Come Jan 1, puffing will no longer be allowed in non-air-conditioned workplaces and public areas, including children's playgrounds, markets and multi-storey carparks.

The move, announced yesterday, is a bid to discourage smoking among the young, and to "offer greater protection to non-smokers", said Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Yaacob Ibrahim.

He was responding to questions from MP Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC), who expressed concern that Singaporeans were picking up the habit at a young age.

"Children learn by watching the actions of adults around them," said Mr Liang.

"The smokers are not just ruining their own health and (that of) others, they are also setting a bad example for young and impressionable children."

A smoking ban that kicked in at nightspots on July 1 last year has yielded positive results, said Dr Yaacob.

Since then, air quality in bars and night clubs has improved, with an 80 per cent reduction in the amount of air-borne particles that can lead to heart and lung problems.

To further help young smokers kick the habit, polyclinics and some hospitals also provide quit-smoking programmes. These efforts have reduced the proportion of first-time smokers among 13- to 16-year-olds to 19 per cent in 2006, down from 26 per cent in 2000, he said.

But putting up anti-smoking signs is just half the battle, said Mr Liang. People are still flouting bans and enforcement needs to be stepped up.

"There continues to be many complaints from Singaporeans about having to contend with second-hand smoke," said Mr Liang.

The National Environment Agency (NEA) has some 420 officers dedicated to smoking out rule-breakers of public health laws, including non-smoking bans. They are further supported by about 50 external officers hired by the NEA.

"We will step up enforcement should the need arise," said Dr Yaacob.

***

In the above article entitled ‘More no-smoking areas from next year’, Tania Tan reports on the new move by the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources to ban smoking in non-air-conditioned workplaces and public areas, including children’s playgrounds, markets and multi-storey carparks, with effect from 1st January 2009. More significantly, this revisits the debate over whether smoking in public should be socially acceptable.

The move, according to the article, is a follow-up of the smoking ban implemented on 1st July 2007, when the smoking ban was extended to public food places. I welcome this initiative, yet could not help but wonder: is this the only way?

Truth be told, I concur with the point-of-view as put forth by the article. Indeed, smoking could bring about adverse social and health repercussions. As cited by the writer, smokers could set a bad example for young and impressionable children, while second-hand smoke poses a health threat to non-smokers. Essentially, irresponsible smokers could lead to a social backlash, hence the need for responsible smoking.

However, punishment should not be the only way to ensure responsible smoking. As the writer astutely pointed out, many are still flouting smoking bans. This could be due to the unwitting action of smokers, who do not understand how smoking might possibly harm others. Just like a child who has committed an error unknowingly, one should seek to address the mistake first instead of meting out immediate punishment.

In response to this, perhaps we could divert our efforts to educating such unwitting rule-breakers, rather than stepping up enforcement. The latter, while it is a short-term solution, only serves to instil fear in smokers and may not be viable in the long term. Conversely, work done in educating the public, specifically smokers, has been centralised more on the individual. For example, health warnings and grotesque photographs are printed on cigarette packets as a caution to what may happen to the smoker. However, I feel that more emphasis should be placed on what may happen to others, such as by means of second-hand smoke. In this, we are pursuing a long-term solution, for change can only happen willingly when there is understanding.

I also believe that as much as we should protect non-smokers' rights, smokers' rights should be protected as well. For one, as the ban limits their smoking areas, smokers may find the treatment somewhat discriminatory and unfair. To resolve this, recent suggestions in the Forum propose 'smoking chambers' for smokers so as to allow them to have their puff. This could be a feasible idea that would protect the interests of both groups of people.

Undeniably, some still defy the smoking bans in full knowledge of the undesirable consequences that may befall others. A significant number of these people believe that smoking is their right, and others should not deny them the right to smoke even in public areas. As a matter of fact, I am of the same opinion: smokers do have a right, a right to smoke at their free will.

But caution: non-smokers do have a right too, a right to the fresh air that nature provides.