April 19 — The headline read, “Promotion to full Minister shows Singapore runs on meritocracy” and immediately it made me cringe. Attributed to the recently-anointed full minister in Singapore’s Cabinet Masagos Zulkifli, it went on to discuss the merits of this system assuring the reader that this was the basis of our young nation.
Now, this isn’t a new idea. From the early days, our national leaders and civil servants have been fervently uttering this phrase: Singapore is a meritocracy. And now, here was a Singaporean from a minority racial group promoted to full minister bringing the total of Malay ministers in a Cabinet – for the first time in the country’s 50 year history — to two.
So, two Malay ministers and we’re supposed to be celebrating.
What exactly about having two Malay ministers is particularly meritocratic? As a true meritocracy, where only the most able and qualified hold power, does this mean this is the first time in history we’ve had two Malays with the ability at the same time?
Also if we are run purely on the basis of merit shouldn’t race already be utterly irrelevant?
And that this is being held up as testament to this meritocracy is mind-boggling. But somehow, these days, meritocracy is increasingly and breathlessly offered up as almost a synonym for Singapore. Yet I suspect most of those who regurgitate the phrase would struggle to define it.
Here’s the problem with the meritocracy mantra: this is a country with considerable income disparities and to claim meritocracy constantly and without question is akin to saying the Singaporean uncle plucking tin cans out of the bin deserves it because he didn’t have enough merit while the third generation Ferrari-driving descendant of a long-dead tycoon somehow earned his lot?
There’s something unsettling about the idea, isn’t there?
The key issue I think is how do you define and measure merit, and what would make this process fair.
A major stumbling block is that a truly fair assessment of merit would require everyone to have an equal chance but equality of opportunity doesn’t exist in Singapore or anywhere else in the world.
The children of the rich and upper middle class have innate and considerable advantages over their poorer counterparts — more options for success with tuition, better neighborhood schools, alumni networks and stable home environments which help them excel.
Again, this is hardly unique to Singapore but other countries don’t spend as much time calling themselves meritocracies.
And despite this proud proclamation, by most measures Singapore, in the last 20 years, hasn’t really displayed the sort of social mobility that would indicate meritocracy.
Many families appear to be stuck in a low income trap while a whole generation of comfortable and well-placed children have been born and raised by comfortable and well-placed parents.
Reduced rates of social mobility are particularly troubling as meritocracy rather than something truly empowering can also be employed to justify the idea of a superior caste with the right to a dominant position on account of their merit.
But again superior on what basis — standardised tests? Results in exams? Firstly standardised test are a very narrow measure of success, secondly even within these parameters family background plays a large role, thirdly advancement open to those who get good grades is hardly unique to Singapore.
If you do well at school and university in the US, Germany, or Sweden you also stand a very good chance of a successful career - regardless of your family background.
There’s really nothing that indicates the island is more objectively meritocratic than any of its small, wealthy developed world peers like Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland for example.
So why do we like using this term so much?
Of course I can’t be sure but I suspect that deploying an ambiguous and politically vague term has its merits.
It allows us to fend off criticism regarding authoritarianism and weak democratic frameworks, we simply retort: but we aren’t a Western style democracy, we are a meritocracy. Except when you unpack the term it is difficult to understand what exactly it means and how this applies to Singapore in any special sense.
Which begs the question, so what are we really?
