Perhaps the root cause remains a sense of hopelessness? A
feeling of abject failure in life, incapable for completing simple
tasks and a cutting a forlorn figure in our society.
Or maybe the meritocracy concept can be tweaked further to achieve
a more balanced equation?
Is
meritocracy what it is made out to be?
I APPLAUD Dr Wong Chiang Yin for
voicing his concerns about the state of our meritocracy system as a
leader among our doctors ('Excellence must not be emptied of moral
content'; ST, Dec 2).
The merits of a meritocracy system are many and undeniable in our
pursuit of progress. But I concur with him wholeheartedly that, for
it to be beneficial to society as a whole, the nub of the matter
is, 'Is it fair that we reward such (successful) persons when
everyone else grows disenchanted and disillusioned?'
I also think that the 'does it work?' mantra of our political
leaders, be it an idea or a philosophy, should now be taken a step
further.
That meritocracy is a working and effective system is now rather
obvious. But 'does it work' for 'everyone else' must surely be the
final arbiter of the system's viability.
Judging from both the voices of those who have fallen through the
system, as conveyed by our MPs, as well as the many anecdotes that
one often hears or reads about, we have valid reasons to be very
concerned.
The most telling evidence must be found in our youths. This is
because they have not yet had the self-made monetary success to
flaunt. Theirs is a self-centred elitism, learnt mainly from those
they live with at home or in educational institutions.
Witness the brashness with which young students assert that those
who are unsuccessful in life have only themselves to blame.
That bright students, who possibly have not yet earned a single
dollar, should pronounce such judgments on adults must surely point
to some breaches and faults that are concealed in the shape and
form of our meritocracy system.
Singapore is like a man going into his 40s. At this stage of life,
it is no longer the obvious and superficial that will see a man
through the latter part of his existence. The most visible parts,
his 'looks' and 'clothes', are there for all to see; likewise, the
good in the meritocracy system.
But what's the 'essence' of the man? Does the system really work?
Or does it just appear to work - up to now?
Are we heading for a possible breakdown? Not the affective divide
between the rulers and the ruled but among the ruled themselves -
given the creeping elitism disguised as excellence but devoid of
moral content, as Dr Wong puts it, that is already evident
today.
It is necessary for the mainstream press to air the issue
sufficiently and let all with an interest in Singapore participate
in a robust debate.
Are we prepared to tackle it head-on, like we claim to want to do
with national issues?
Law Kim Hwee
ST Forum
