Former PM Mr Lee Kuan Yew said: “I do not accept that there are any disadvantages to meritocracy.” – the South Asia Diaspora Convention, Resorts World Sentosa, Jul 22th 2011.
Graph 1
I will argue that meritocracy as envisaged by LKY has reached the limits of its efficacy. LKY had positioned meritocracy as the better ideology over birth, race or class. And from 1966 to 1980 (Graph 2, below), Singapore’s Gini coefficient fell 18%. It is an environment of high social mobility, competition and personal ambition as represented by (A) in the Graph 1 above; there is high public trust (denoted by its position near to (+), and there is adequate social cohesion (denoted by its position in the Compassion-Prejudice/Bigotry axis).
However, using Michael Young’s The Rise of the Meritocracy in 1958, it can be shown that Singapore’s meritocracy is moving towards point (B) in Graph 1; where meritocracy not only increased the Gini coefficient due to ever widening income gap, but that it creates an environment that has low social mobility, it is anti-competition and dampened personal ambition.
Contrary to those that think people who question the concept of meritocracy are asking for a bigger government role, encouraging an entitlement attitude and despise intellectual discourses, the argument here is that meritocracy as is practiced in Singapore makes government intervention inevitable. It is needed to redress social tensions brought about by policies that produced low social mobility, anti-competition and dampened personal ambition.
Graph 2
Meritocracy
The meritocracy as we understand it was initially a disruptive agent in the Western world. It was used by conflict theorists to break the ideology of the elites; the Monarchists and the Aristocrats. It was believed that the Confucian texts were translated during the period of Enlightenment; almost 2,000 years after the Han Dynasty first used it to select their Imperial officials.
The British Empire was the first European power to implement a successful meritocratic civil service, in their administration of India: “company managers hired and promoted employees based on competitive examinations in order to prevent corruption and favoritism.” (Wikipedia)
Patronage was first challenged in the Indian Civil Service when examinations were introduced in 1854, and in the Home Civil Service somewhat later in 1870. (Roach, 1971)
‘Meritocracy’ was first coined by Michael Young in his satirical essay called The Rise of the Meritocracy in 1958. The word was a combination in Greek of merit and power.
Young’s essay was a critique of meritocracy, and it seems pertinent in Singapore’s context:1. it gives raise and perpetuates inequality, 2. he predicted coalescence of classes along the lines of intelligence.
1. Singapore’s Gini coefficient had risen from 0.422 in 1980 to 0.463 in 2013.
2. Lee Kuan Yew: “the reality as societies developed is that leaders often come from the same social circles, educational backgrounds and even family trees.” (Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going, pg. 104)
“Currently, seven out of 18 Cabinet Ministers are former SAF Overseas Scholars, while many others serve in top leadership positions such as Permanent Secretaries of Ministries, as well as Chief Executives of statutory boards and private sector organizations…..”
- Speech by Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen, at the Singapore Armed Forces Overseas Scholarship Award Presentation Ceremony, 2013.
A glance at the political elite, one would realise the current Cabinet ministers hailed primarily from three schools – Raffles Institution, Anglo-Chinese School and Catholic High. Another glance at the bureaucratic elite would reveal nine out of 21 permanent secretaries having Rafflesian roots. This is a reflection of preferential self-selection within the elite based on their personal connections at work. In the business community, the old boys’ network of Anglo-Chinese School enable entrepreneurs and professionals to settle business deals with ease. This is what led sociologist Dr Vincent Chua to conclude that being ‘embedded’ in resource-rich networks helps to propel people upwards in a meritocracy, and that prompted his colleague Irene Ng to emphasise how that ‘first leg’ into a good school yields better results. These realities underscore the intangible benefits of an elite education – one that is becoming increasingly exclusive and out of reach of common Singaporeans.
- Soh Yi Da: Examining Meritocracy & Elitism in Singapore
In Singapore’s context Education is: Effective Brain Power Planning.
‘Effective brain power planning is not only necessary to end one of the kinds of competition between employers that is wasteful, but gives the government strategic power to control the whole economy’
- Michael Young, 1958.
In other words, meritocracy is measurable, and not only measurable but the nature of intelligence is not to be contested, but is a fixed trait that follows a person throughout his life.
In this understanding, the distribution of human abilities in the country is then systematically matched to manpower needs. And for a country like Singapore where GLCs are dominant economic players, the seduction of such a narrative emboldens the government in its administrative function to intervene directly in education:
1. to secure the crème de la crème for itself (inadvertently for PAP)
2. to institutionalize meritocracy as a scientific and irrefutable standard for measuring abilities
3. to internalize in its citizens a hierarchical culture for social and political control
In fact, Michael Young argued that meritocracy in its infancy will allow competition and ambition so that the ‘genius’ gets to the lofty position it deserves. However, oncemeritocratic administration is perfected, and everyone’s place in society is matched to his ‘abilities’, competition and ambition are discouraged.
And the reason is that competition and ambition then become ‘disruptive agents’ in a finely tuned society that has all its bricks exactly where they want it. In other words, don’t rock the boat.
Is that the reason why LKY said: “I do not accept that there are any disadvantages to meritocracy.” – the South Asia Diaspora Convention, Resorts World Sentosa, Jul 22th 2011.
I suggest that one of the metrics to measure stagnation of competition and ambition in an ‘administratively perfected meritocracy’ is social mobility.
“We found that Singapore‘s intergenerational mobility was similar to that of the United States, which is low compared with other developed countries.
Though there has been a significant jump in the earnings and educational status of later generations relative to earlier ones in Singapore, low intergenerational mobility implies that those whose parents were at the bottom tend to also remain at the bottom, while those whose parents were at the top tend to stay there.”
- Singapore’s Education System; Growing worry of social immobility (Irene Y.H. Ng, ST, 16/2, pA25)
And it does seem that social mobility in Singapore is slowing or even in reverse.
Conclusion
Meritocracy does not claim that it is fair, but only that it is ‘justly unfair’, because it is a measure of inherited individual traits that are immutable, no possible remedial correction, and therefore acceptance is rational and even scientific.
First let me show how even people from government are having second thoughts about meritocracy as conceived by LKY, not in those exact words, but palpable nonetheless:
1. DPM Tharman (NTU forum, 5th Sep 2012). DPM talked about an ‘evolving meritocracy’, DPM said one increasing challenge is in building an inclusive society in a highly competitive world. He said Singapore needs to achieve a fair and just society for each generation of Singaporeans even as it sustains a vibrant economy. What is needed is a progressive agenda where the government focuses on social mobility.
- http://forums.sgclub.com/singapore.
2. The road to the future must remain rooted in meritocracy. It is the most fundamental organising principle in our society, PM Lee said. “So at the same time, if you succeed under our system, then you must feel the duty to contribute back, because you didn’t do it alone,” he said. He called this “compassionate meritocracy“, a term coined by Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong.
- The New Paper, Aug 21, 2013
And what of “evolving meritocracy” or “compassionate meritocracy“? They are exactly the inevitable responses to Young’s opinion that meritocracy leads to 1. high inequality, and as had been shown, 2. it also leads to class coalescence and collusion based on so called ‘intelligence’.
In Young’s critique of meritocracy when it has become administratively perfect, there is no need for competition and ambition, because each and everyone’s ability is matched to the country’s manpower needs. And this ubiquitous government is more than just Orwellian fiction.
I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters – who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think.
- Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, Straits Times, 20 April 1987
In such a narrative of meritocracy, social disaffection will come about as competition and ambition are restrained and social, economic and political spheres made smaller to accommodate and protect the elites.
Therefore, it should be no surprise that the government now is trying hard to maintain its grip on power while mitigating such social disaffection. And as above, Tharman, and even GCT in Petir had called for greater social mobility. Even the reshuffle of the cabinet on 29th Apr 2014 was said to: Latest Cabinet reshuffle to benefit health, social portfolios. – Todayonline.
LKY’s meritocracy is over. It served us well until possibly till the early 1990s, when incumbency and monopolistic inertia took over. This government will still call it ‘Meritocracy’, just as they call ‘legislating the wage model’ for cleaners and security guards not a ‘minimum wage’.
As Lim Chong Yah said: “..society is made for man, and not man for society..” – The Edge Singapore, 5th Nov 2012.
In other words, everyone of us counts.
BK