One of the things about being a blogger is that you sometimes attract the most interesting of followers. If you take my last piece on the topic of “racism,” I actually got a comment from an anonymous (the standard name of commentators) asking me to describe “real meritocracy” from my “non-Chinese” perspective.
I have answered the said reader of the comment and I think he or she didn’t quite do his or her research on Singapore’s history. I suspect the commenter had taken offence with the fact that I had taken offence with the fact that an IPS survey had found that half of Singapore’s Malay and Indian population felt they were discriminated against when applying for jobs.
Unfortunately, I understand where the comment is coming from. It comes from a cultural prejudice of our local Chinese community that views the indigenous Bumis, Pinoys, Thais etc as being less hardworking and clever than the Chinese – therefore, in a “meritocracy” where you look at things like qualifications and work experience (who did you work for before me and what did you do) rather than ethnic group, it goes without saying that the Chinese with their superior school results get the job. Hence, the argument goes – if the Malays don’t want to feel discriminated against, they should learn to work as hard as the Chinese if they want to survive in a meritocracy.
Unfortunately, the statistics seem to support this prejudice. If you take a broad-brush sweep of Southeast Asia, you’ll find that the top scholars tend to be Chinese as are the top working professionals. The economies of Southeast Asia are dominated by ethnic Chinese – just trace the shareholders of the top conglomerates in the region and you’ll find that they are inevitably Chinese. The Malaysia’s “Bumiputra” policy, which favors ethnic Malays in business and the awarding of government contracts, was put in place because the Chinese control of the economy was so dominant that it didn’t leave much for the natives.
So, in the Southeast Asian context, it is not wrong to argue that if you want “meritocracy” at its purest, you’re going to have to accept that the “Yellow” faces are going to be the dominant force in business and the jobs will inevitably go to those with the best qualifications, who happen to be Chinese. Singapore’s ethnic Chinese majority allows Singapore to trumpet meritocracy as the way to go. Governments in the rest of the region, where the Chinese are the minority, don’t use the word “meritocracy” and instead, talk about “native rights.”
Having said that, it still remains morally wrong to discriminate against someone based on their skin colour or religion and when you look at things from a social perspective, it is short sighted to allow a situation where one ethnic group dominates everything.
I’ve argued that Singapore’s initial ethos of “meritocracy” is correct. How can you argue against having the most capable person for the job? As former President Obama argued in the 2016 election – “It is NOT COOL to NOT KNOW what you’re doing – if you’re lying on an operating table, you want your surgeon to be the best.”
However, there is a draw back to this. Yes, you should let the smart people get ahead regardless of race or religion but you need to look after the “losers” of the system too for the very purpose of keeping “meritocracy” pure.
I have answered the said reader of the comment and I think he or she didn’t quite do his or her research on Singapore’s history. I suspect the commenter had taken offence with the fact that I had taken offence with the fact that an IPS survey had found that half of Singapore’s Malay and Indian population felt they were discriminated against when applying for jobs.
Unfortunately, I understand where the comment is coming from. It comes from a cultural prejudice of our local Chinese community that views the indigenous Bumis, Pinoys, Thais etc as being less hardworking and clever than the Chinese – therefore, in a “meritocracy” where you look at things like qualifications and work experience (who did you work for before me and what did you do) rather than ethnic group, it goes without saying that the Chinese with their superior school results get the job. Hence, the argument goes – if the Malays don’t want to feel discriminated against, they should learn to work as hard as the Chinese if they want to survive in a meritocracy.
Unfortunately, the statistics seem to support this prejudice. If you take a broad-brush sweep of Southeast Asia, you’ll find that the top scholars tend to be Chinese as are the top working professionals. The economies of Southeast Asia are dominated by ethnic Chinese – just trace the shareholders of the top conglomerates in the region and you’ll find that they are inevitably Chinese. The Malaysia’s “Bumiputra” policy, which favors ethnic Malays in business and the awarding of government contracts, was put in place because the Chinese control of the economy was so dominant that it didn’t leave much for the natives.
So, in the Southeast Asian context, it is not wrong to argue that if you want “meritocracy” at its purest, you’re going to have to accept that the “Yellow” faces are going to be the dominant force in business and the jobs will inevitably go to those with the best qualifications, who happen to be Chinese. Singapore’s ethnic Chinese majority allows Singapore to trumpet meritocracy as the way to go. Governments in the rest of the region, where the Chinese are the minority, don’t use the word “meritocracy” and instead, talk about “native rights.”
Having said that, it still remains morally wrong to discriminate against someone based on their skin colour or religion and when you look at things from a social perspective, it is short sighted to allow a situation where one ethnic group dominates everything.
I’ve argued that Singapore’s initial ethos of “meritocracy” is correct. How can you argue against having the most capable person for the job? As former President Obama argued in the 2016 election – “It is NOT COOL to NOT KNOW what you’re doing – if you’re lying on an operating table, you want your surgeon to be the best.”
However, there is a draw back to this. Yes, you should let the smart people get ahead regardless of race or religion but you need to look after the “losers” of the system too for the very purpose of keeping “meritocracy” pure.
In Singapore, we focused on meritocracy, which was correct. However, human beings don’t always work on pure ideology and sooner or later, the ideals of meritocracy get diluted. In Singapore, we have the scholarship system, which was supposed to allow the less well off to climb up the social ladder and get the smart guys working to make life better. However, parents soon realized that the key to success was ensuring academic success and before you knew it, scholars started coming from the same type of background, going to the same institutions, where they ended up helping their buddies.
Take SMRT as an example. You had one Chief of Defense Force (CDF) becoming CEO and when things didn’t go well, they hired his successor as CDF. While the new guy did make the right noises, the results have not been impressive.
The same thing has happened in European Soccer. The Manchester United’s of the continent, win everything, get the most sponsorship and have the most money to buy the best players. The Champion’s League (Man U, Bayern Munich, Paris St Germaine etc) is just that – a league of its own. It makes players rich, keeps the TV cameras rolling but doesn’t go much to help soccer develop.
As I have often said, life is unfair and people can accept that. Fact remains – there are winners and losers. However, as any fan of athletics will tell you – they all start at the same point.
To get “real” meritocracy, you need a situation where the people on top are being challenged. You need a situation where the people at the bottom can choose the race, they want to enter without feeling they are screwed.
I can accept that Chinese and Malay cultures are different. When it comes to economics, they look at things differently. Malaysia’s perpetual Prime Minister, Dr. Mohammad Mahathir observed in his book the “Malay Dilemma” that when the price of rubber doubled, the Chinese worked twice as hard (more money), while the Malays worked half as hard (same money for half the work). These are two different approaches to life. Neither should have a “legal” right of being “THE” way of life for everyone. Furthermore, a lifestyle should not be restricted to a particular ethnic group. My father once told me, “I’ll be happy if you marry a Malay girl. You won’t have much money but you’ll be happy.”
I’m intellectually against government intervention in how people live their lives. However, it bothers me when a significant portion of the population feels screwed whenever they do something like apply for a job. It should be a telling point that what we’re getting is not meritocracy but an oligopoly.
So, what do we do? I don’t believe in ethnic discrimination for the sake of it. In neighboring Malaysia, Bumiputra laws were supposed to even the playing field. The reality was, Chinese businessmen tied up with well connected Malay politicians and the only Malays that got rich were the well connected. The result was that a minority ended up taking up so much of the pie that the people at the bottom got fed up. As an ethnic Malay lawyer said, “The beauty of the 2018 election was that race stopped being an issue – people voted as Malaysians to get rid of a corrupt bunch.”
Social planners should take note – we, the people accept that there are rich and poor. I, for example, can accept that there are people with more than me just as I accept that there are people who have less. What I cannot accept is the other guy getting so much of the pie that I have nothing, whatever I do. So, let’s understand this – our Malay and Indian brethren are not asking for more of the pie. They are merely asking to be judged on their abilities and talents. The day any ethnic group believes that its not getting anything is the day we are in trouble.
No comments
Post a Comment