News

As we uphold meritocracy in Singapore’s new social compact, let’s not be misled and remember the often hidden aspects of meritocracy that can conflict with its true essence. Meritocracy has served Singapore well. It was an open system, devised for upward social mobility, and it superseded aristocracy, which accorded one’s social status via birthright. Many of our pioneers and even Cabinet ministers are beneficiaries of meritocracy – having found success despite humble beginnings. While meritocracy remains a sound principle, it’s starting to buckle under its own weight. Hard work and gumption no longer suffice. Parents who have benefited from the system can now bequeath this advantage to their children. Resourceful families have spared no expense to hire the best tutors or coaches and provide the necessary nutrition for their children’s needs. These children will likely attend Ivy League colleges and become successful, contributing members of society. They will inherit the advantages of meritocracy, build networks with their peers, and create social capital for their future generations. On the other end of the spectrum, lower-income families have to struggle with bread and butter issues. Children of these households have to contend with poor nutrition and live-in conditions and, in spite of their best efforts, will find it hard to close the gap.  Meritocracy can lead to ossification of the classes if not carefully managed. It first functions as a competent sorting hat – placing talent where they are best needed, according to their abilities. But its algorithm seems to favour those who have a head start without adequately considering social behaviour, perpetuating a flawed notion of meritocracy. This runs contrary to the founding tenet and spirit of the word.