Loo Yongquan

16A04

Is meritocracy necessarily good?

Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir once said: Meritocracy is the only path forward.
Mahathir is just one of many leaders who have embraced the meritocratic system as an ideal system
with today, leaders such as Macron, Xi Jinping, Theresa May seeing the system as an essential part
to the success of their respective countries. Yet, behind this optimistic stance lies perhaps a crucial
question of whether meritocracy is necessarily good. Many have viewed the system as an effective
tool for pragmatic-minded governments to advance their economic interests because it has invited
stiff competition among the populace, thus providing incentives for everyone to give the best of
themselves and contribute more to the economy. However, I stress the capacity for meritocracy to
achieve is limited by its inability to provide for the well-being of citizens. There are things in this
world far beyond achieving economic growth with the well-being of citizens being one of them.
This system has affected the lives of everyone, placing pressures that have only served to
deteriorate the quality of life of the citizens in the system. This, in my opinion, is heartening and I
believe it is time governments realized that their duties go far beyond achieving economic growth
and it is time the happiness of the nation came first.

By providing a competitive environment, the meritocratic system has been a potent tool for
pragmatic-minded governments to achieve economic growth with its capability to get the best out
of everyone. The system benefits from one key characteristic: rewarding citizens based on merits
and achievements and this has compelled citizens to work hard to get rewarded. The only way to
succeed or even survive in such a system is by sheer merit and those who fail do so do not reap the
rewards. It is therefore not only an incentive, but also a compulsion for everyone to work hard over
their peers in order to gain anything at all from meritocracy. As a result, everybody under such a
system has strived to do better, thus becoming more productive to the economy. The prime
example of a well-known country embracing meritocracy, Singapore, cogently illustrates this: In
Singapore, those who demonstrate impressive capabilities in excelling in their studies in secondary
schools are rewarded more than those who dont. Elites are given the entry to prestigious schools
such as Hwa Chong and those who fail to compete often end up entering the workforce and
struggle to find a job for the simple reason that the system is geared towards merits. It therefore
comes as no surprise that the economy has been doing well. After all, the people have been forced
to work hard in an intense meritocratic education system since young. Similarly, the elements of
meritocracy present in the USA has been invaluable to its economic prosperity. In this country, the
emphasis on talent has been a key driver to the US economy. The American Dream has given to all
Americans the belief that it is indeed possible to get massively wealthy, thus playing an undeniable
role in the hardworking ethic that characterise so many Americans today. Such a system has
therefore been key in fostering a hard-working society and enabling economies to achieve greater
heights.

Moreover, another merit of meritocracy is that ensures that everyone has an equal chance to
succeed regardless of race or birth thus it could be argued that it is not only vital to an economy,
but also helps achieve the principal goal of equity, which is vital to the national unity of a country. In
a meritocracy, the starting point is the same for everyone or at least that is what the governments
strive to achieve. Everyone in the country as a result feels treated equally, which is a necessary
condition for a country to achieve national unity. In Singapore, the education system provides an
equal starting point for all with even the less wealthy being able to pursue education with the aid
of government subsidies. A poll done in 2016 has shown that a preponderant of university students
in National University of Singapore have actually started out from average or low-income families-
which strikes as quizzical, because in most countries, only the wealthier students end up in
universities. In addition, many reported being of different races. Meritocracy has therefore enabled
equity and Singapores lack of racial riots since 1969 can be attributed in large part because of the
equity achieved from its meritocratic system. The contrasting example of Myanmar evince the
importance of meritocracy in achieving unity. In Myanmar, the country has been unable to provide
an equal starting point for everyone in the country. For instance, the Rohingyas, among other
minorities have been unable to access education in Burma causing them to be at a disadvantage.
As a result, ethnic tensions have plagued the country since its 1948 independence. After all, such
non-meritocratic aspects clearly discriminated against minorities, and even arguably alienated them.
Therefore, it is without a doubt that meritocracy enabled equity to be achieved, which in turn,
allowed for national unity.

Nonetheless, such a system has placed intense pressure on citizens to achieve, putting the well-
being of everyone in the population in great peril. By rewarding only, the best, the competition has
been fierce, and many have overworked themselves as a result. This is especially true for those not
gifted with the necessary skillset to emerge on top or survive in such a harsh system. To catch up
with their peers, they were compelled to work harder than the others and more often than not,
many suffer from insufficient sleep and stress issues. In Singapore, speaking from a personal
experience, most people that I have met have been struggling with sleep all the way from secondary
to junior college in large part because they have been unable to cope with the competition. In fact,
many polls show that even in the workforce, many still suffer from insufficient sleep and
inappropriate stress levels, and makes us truly question the effectiveness of this meritocracy if
cant even ensure appropriate living standards. On average, the average Junior College student sleep
between 5-6 hours which strikes as quizzical because according to health organisations such as the
National Sleep Foundation, 8 hours is the appropriate number of sleep hours. And this is not
restricted to Singapore, as other countries such as Japan, China or USA, known for being largely
meritocratic, face similar problems: long working hours and high stress levels. In some more extreme
examples, some people have even ended their lives because they simply could not cope with such
pressures. In 2016, two young girls aged 15 committed suicide amidst studying in Chinas highly
meritocratic education system. While such instances remain rare, it remains unequivocal that the
pressures that have arose the meritocratic system have compromised our material standard of
living.

Finally, meritocracy had a profound impact on the social dynamics of a country because the strong
competition that everyone in the country faces has made many engage in selfish behaviours in their
attempts to emerge among the elites thus undermining social relations to a large extent. In a
meritocracy, everyone competes against each other regardless of social relations. In this system,
only a select few will top the ranks and become elites. It is a serious issue especially considering
that humans are driven by self-interests. This also implies that many prioritize their own success
over that of their classmates or colleagues, and would easily compromise friendships to get a
promotion or come up on top. This causes a change in social dynamics because it has made people
engage in selfish behaviour and care only about themselves to rise up the ranks. In Singapore, the
meritocratic system has made many students selfish and self-interested about their own success
rather than the success of others. This has given rise to a kiasu behaviour specific to Singapore and
a willingness for many students to keep their knowledge to themselves because of the steep bell
curve that is present in Singapore. Having experienced the system, I can safely say that Singaporeans
rarely help others, and when they do so, they do so with great apprehension. This is because they
have been disillusioned by its meritocracy. This is therefore a major problem in the system because
people become self-interested. In some more extreme cases, not only does it incite selfish
behaviour, but it also brings about behaviour that can be detrimental to others. In the admissions for
the Yale university (which chooses students based on merits), a student was sabotaged by another
student because of the limited places in the university.

In conclusion, meritocracy has acted as a double-edged sword: benefiting to the economy and
detrimental to the people. In my opinion, I believe that, though there are economic benefits, the
capacity for this system to achieve is undermined by the fact that does not ensure an adequate
lifestyle for the populace. I find it heartening that on the basis of economic growth, governments
forego the well-being of its people. It is time governments realized that their duties go far beyond
delivering economic growth. Reducing their reliance on meritocracy should come as a moral
necessity, as a duty of a caring state.