Our education minister Chan has got all the right words at the right place about meritocracy. I am sure his heart is at the right place too.
He was addressing a virtual audience of 6000 educators at a Teachers’ Conference and he knew what to say about the loaded 11-letter word “meritocracy”. He started by reminding educators to keep the definition of meritocracy broad. “It means ensuring that meritocracy is continuous rather than having “one high-stake exam...define anyone for life.””
He added: “People develop different strengths at different stages of life. We must keep enabling porosity (that is, keeping society porous so as to allow for social mobility) and look out for opportunities to allow different talents to develop at different paces. Even the successful must never be complacent.”
He said those who are privileged “have a responsibility to pay it forward to those with less, for Singapore to be more inclusive.”
Well, I guess the benchmark of merit is far better than leaving such measurement of one’s fortune in life to a system based on hereditary rights, right? It used to be that where you are placed in the society all depends on your family bloodline. So, with meritocracy, gone are the days where you are born a future king, princess, duke or baron.
Mind you, such an inequitable treatment is liken to the birth canal acting as the christening of your genetic fate, without you lifting a finger to earn it. In other words, you were pushed by an external force into being, not of your own will and control.
But, if you think about it, aren’t the descendants of the rich and powerful entrepreneurs in this world, a variant form of royalty or aristocracy of days gone by? In fact, I hasten to add that the kids of Gates and Bezos and the princelings of China billionaires are far richer than the kids of royalty.
And isn’t that hereditary rights all over again with meritocracy, save that their first generation worked hard and smart enough for it, and the subsequent generations are born into it, harvesting the fruits of their toil and sweat? Mm...another variant form of birth canal christening by order of genetic fate?
Of course, that is admittedly an oversimplification, but minister Chan’s reminder of not letting that “one high-stake exam” define all is, for all practical purposes, one part of the story; for merit in reality tends to define all, especially the way we as Singaporeans obsessively do merit.
And yes, “people develop different strengths at different stages of life”, yet our society has little patience for late bloomers because they have not shown the merit needed (or prescribed, largely by the grade metric) to have what it takes. In fact, the message here is quite strident for Singaporeans at a young age: Succeed right now or you will never.
Alas, and I think the good minister knows it, he is promoting a virtue often being held hostage in a system that represents anything but the effective advancement of it. Or, such promotion is caught in a system that pays only lip service to it, though the heart is undeniably still at the right place.
For enobled reasons at the start, merit is one of the pillars of our national ethos. Mind you, all our high-achieving cabinet ministers swear by it, and has proven themselves through it.
They are elected mainly, if not exclusively, by it. Most of them earned their stripes through the gruelling process under the handmaiden of meritocracy. And yes, I say give merit its credit, but to a certain extent.
Let me end with these words by minister Chan at the Teachers’ Conference, which kept me thinking. He reminded teachers “the importance of values that will anchor future generations as they navigate a complex world”.
In the same speech, he also mentioned meritocracy as one such value with this caveat: “But it is also important for Singaporeans to be open and inclusive, as well as a trusted and principled people.”
While I would not disagree with merit being a value, it crucially depends on how merit is defined right? And minister Chan was spot on when he told all 6000 educators that its definition has to be broaden to be inclusive - for different people, different strokes, at different stages of life.
However, as I have written here, the greater relevance (or urgency) is to address the issue of what meritocracy has unwittingly spawned. And its dark side has turned it into less of a value and more of an impediment, if not a growing threat.
On this, Professor Carol Dweck observed: “I think society is in a crisis. Kids seem more exhausted and brittle today. I’m getting much more fear of failure, fear of evaluation, than I’ve gotten before. I see it in a lot of kids; a desire to play it safe. They don’t want to get into a place of being judged, of having to produce.” She calls it a “crippling fear of failure.” Can we (especially parents) in Singapore identify with that?
And then, there is the warped sense of entitlement and hubris that comes with the blind pursuit of merit. Max Weber saw that coming more than a hundred years ago. He wrote this: -
“The fortunate (person) is seldom satisfied with the fact of being fortunate. Beyond this, he needs to know that he has a right to his good fortune. He wants to be convinced that he “deserves” it, and above all, that he deserves it in comparison with others. He wishes to be allowed the belief that the less fortunate also merely experience (their) due.”
That subtlety of mindset inevitably destroys society; for it divides society between those who demand others acknowledge their right to good fortune (regardless of how they got it) and those whom they condemn as deserving of their lot (whether openly or privately). And at some point in meritocracy’s development, the drive to reach the top is based not so much on proving ourselves, with noble intent, but on a vindictive streak, because we do not want to be looked down at. It’s payback time.
Yet, not all will make it. No news there. Those who don’t make it, resign to their meritocratic fate. And with a predictable twist of fate, those who happen to make it, they unknowingly become what they once railed against. This vicious cycle goes on and on, endless, driven by intense envy, an entitlement mindset and hubris, all of which arises from the relentless pursuit of merit.
So, kudos no less to minister Chan for a rallying speech, with personal anecdotes to boot. But, I sometimes wish he would warn us more about its dark side. Because at some point, the bright side has become too glaring for some of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment