Volume 5, Issue 1, Sep 2013 | 21 intrinsically tied to the government’s nation-building Questioning Meritocracy project and construction of the country’s ofcial history. Since independence, Singapore has been in Singapore dominated by one political party, the People’s Action Party (PAP). Singapore’s ofcial history is a product of Nur Elysa Sapari the PAP government’s national construction project. Singapore’s frst and longest-serving Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew’s personal memoirs, Te Singapore Story, he meritocratic system in Singapore falsely further embeds the idea of his (and a select group of frst generation leaders’) version of events as being one and Tmerit factors such as family background, the same as Singapore’s ofcial history (Barr and Skrbis networks and connections, and ethnicity on 2008, 18). In public schools, National Education and individual prospects of social mobility. This denial, History textbooks help establish and maintain this coupled with continued failure to adequately narrative of Singapore in the public imagination. Social engineering is conducted through government policies and tight control over the mainstream media. segments of society, has led ironically to the In short, Singaporeans are socialized throughout their implicit privileging of certain non-merit attributes lives to play their respective parts in perpetuating over others in societal selection processes. In ‘Te Singapore Story’ (Barr and Skrbis 2008, 35). practice, the government’s deliberate focus on An integral part of national construction has been meritocracy’s elitist selection mechanism over the about successfully controlling and ingraining a principle’s egalitarian underpinning has turned governing ideology into the psyches of Singaporeans. the system here into an ‘ideology of inequality’. Pragmatism is repeatedly espoused for survival and overcoming Singapore’s vulnerable position as a small has catalysed a renegotiation on this matter island-state without natural resources. Pragmatism is between the ruling and the ruled in Singaporean widely accepted as the foundational basis of public society. policies, empowering the leaders to make apparently incontestable policy decisions justifed by a siege Singapore extols the virtues of meritocracy arguably mentality. Moreover, pragmatism has been extolled as more than any other country. Embedded within the a non-ideological concept when it is an ideology in purportedly non-ideological concept of pragmatism, itself. Denying pragmatism as an ideology serves the meritocracy underlies the system of societal selection purpose of encouraging a de-politicized acceptance of and advancement in the country. Te meritocratic the concept by the population. system in Singapore falsely but efectively denies the infuence of non-merit factors such as family As a function of pragmatism, meritocracy in background, networks and connections, and ethnicity Singapore’s national discourse is generally uncontested on individual prospects for social mobility. Further and regularly forwarded as the only viable principle exacerbating the situation is a failure to adequately for managing the country’s scarcity of resources in remedy the diferential infuence of non-merit factors order to achieve optimal socio-economic performance on prospects for individuals from diferent segments of (MFA 2008; 2010; 2011). Introduced in 1951 by the society. Ironically, this has resulted in the privileging, British colonial government through the creation of albeit implicitly, of certain non-merit attributes over the Public Service Commission (PSC), Singapore’s others in societal selection processes. In practice, form of meritocracy is based on the 1854 British the government’s deliberate focus on meritocracy’s Northcote-Trevelyan Report, which formed the elitist selection mechanism over the principle’s foundation for merit-based recruitment to the British egalitarian underpinning has produced a supposedly civil service. Subsequently, however, such meritocracy just stratifcation of society. Heightened visibility of has been extended beyond civil service recruitment the system’s uneven efects along non-merit factors into a phenomenon termed “macho-meritocracy” has catalysed a renegotiation on this matter between (Vogel 1989, 1053). Meritocracy in Singapore both the government and the people. Te principle of horizontally and vertically permeates the societal meritocracy and its practice in Singapore needs to selection mechanism. Horizontally, it is not just be better understood in order to afect constructive bureaucrats but also politicians who are deemed criticism for policy options. Based on a study of the as requiring screening through selection processes. meritocratic system as practiced in Singapore today, Vertically, this process of selection spans almost the this paper aims to serve as a resource for the re- entire lifetime of Singaporeans, from the outset of thinking of meritocracy in Singapore. formal education in primary school to their lives as working adults. Meritocracy continues to serve as an National Context ideological resource and the PAP government’s central resource for both recruiting ‘talented’ individuals into Te practice of meritocracy in Singapore is public service and providing a blueprint to guide the 22 | PRISM: USP Undergraduate Journal rest of Singaporean society. Defned by its winners and the elitist strand of meritocracy has been accorded actively promoted to achieve widespread consensus prevalence over the principle’s egalitarian strand when and support, meritocracy has been promulgated into it comes to meritocracy in practice. Identifying and Singapore’s ofcial selection mechanism (Sen 2000, selecting for the cream of the crop invariably leaves out 14). Tis is despite the questionable link between an many people who then become the system’s losers. Yet, individual’s performance in school and their ability to the government has undertaken the task of forming serve society. the elite with far more interest and conviction than in levelling the playing feld for the others. Finally, Control over the defnition of meritocracy in as long as the key inherent contradiction in the Singapore has equated meritocracy with ‘equality principle of meritocracy between its egalitarian and of opportunity’ as opposed to ‘equality of outcome’ elitist strands is balanced and managed, meritocracy (MFA 2010). Tis dichotomy falsely implies may continue to function accordingly (Tan 2008, 7). mutual exclusivity of striving for those two forms of egalitarianism. Equality of opportunity relates Less desirable efects of Singapore’s meritocratic to the concept of negative liberty or freedom from system include a lack of social conscience in public interference, while equality of outcome relates to policies. Needy elderly Singaporeans and single positive liberty or the means of achieving one’s potential mothers are two of such groups that visibly struggle (Berlin 1969). By focusing on providing negative to make ends meet, yet often fail to qualify for socio- liberty through procedural equality of opportunity, the economic safeguards in areas like wages and public Singapore state manages to eschew the responsibility housing. In comparison, a country like Germany, of enabling disadvantaged citizens. Meritocracy here which has individuals with incomes comparable to has been steered in favour of selecting the system’s Singapore’s, practices meritocracy and charts sustained winners at the expense of advancing assistance for its economic growth while providing social safety nets losers. Meritocracy nonetheless continues to be widely that help protect vulnerable groups against poverty and accepted in Singapore, with a minority benefting destitution. Pragmatism may suggest that resources be more out of the system than the majority from whom prudently channelled toward economically-productive legitimacy is drawn. As an ingrained mental model, ventures, but it risks creating a society lacking in meritocracy has shaped the expectations and behaviour compassion and social conscience. of Singaporeans over generations. Acceptance, internalization and perpetuation of the form of Individual Merit meritocracy practiced here have shaped a competitive national culture known colloquially as ‘kiasuism’. Individual merit is difcult to defne and isolate Virtually all Singaporeans are part of a system based from the myriad factors that exist from the point upon the idea that meritocracy can enable them to of birth. Tis makes it difcult to conceptualize achieve social mobility through their own eforts. Tis individual merit and identify what exactly forms the perception is especially held by Singaporeans lower fundamental basis of selection for any meritocratic on the spectrum of occupational prestige than those system, including Singapore’s. In their work on the at the higher end (Chiew et al. 1997, 63). However, American “myth of meritocracy”, McNamee and the reality is that while some may achieve social Miller identify four components of individual merit: mobility, the system is biased towards certain types of talent, attitude, hard work, and moral character (2009, ‘talent’. Hence, many more, particularly those from 21). Applied to Singapore, individual merit is similarly the aforementioned group lower on the occupational regarded, with particular emphases on talent and prestige spectrum, face serious difculty in achieving hard work. Individual merit is ‘objectively’ measured substantive social mobility. Moreover, the path to the through