A Tale of Two Meritocracies (Part 2)

Before I begin, let me roughly summarize what is needed from Part 1:

1) A meritocracy is only as good as its definition of merit.
2) An exam meritocracy is problematic.
3) Singapore's implementation of the exam meritocracy is flawed.
4) The exam meritocracy has consequences... it prevents 'talent' from rising to the top.
5) The problem is systemic.

This post is going to be far more speculative than the first one.

Now this is what I hope to point out: The problem is self-perpetuating.

I would first like to say that Singapore is NOT an open society (that's another story for another day), and this partly causes the issue of the exam meritocracy (or is it the other way round? I vote this way round because 'Singapore the closed society' existed before 'exam meritocracy'). Let's face it, exams as meritocracies are pretty much closed systems. Exams judge a person by some other arbitrary definition of merit (and given that in the case of Singapore, owing to the scholarship system, that judge was more likely than not judged by that same arbitrary criteria). More likely than not, that arbitrary criteria is one that reinforces the status quo. Which is pretty much unsurprising for exams, whose primary purpose is not to innovate, but to test ability on an already defined set of truths. As I pointed out earlier, the problem sets (no pun intended) in when the exam is the meritocracy.

Those promoted by virtue of exams for some reason tend not to rock the boat either... I have no idea why that is, thus I speculate: In Singapore, passing exams have evolved to become something of a fine art (due to the Darwinism of the exam meritocracy), that being merely 'competent' or even 'good' is insufficient to do well. One has to eat, breathe and live the way of the exams to do extremely well or at least be sufficiently enamoured by the exam. In exams, that which is perfect and correct is that which is within the system and by definition, the system is assumed perfect, else why are you being examined under such? Thus there is very little room for change and deviation because exams have no concept of 'outside the system'. It's a bit of stretch, but I think those are enamoured by exams (but not necessarily doing well in) tend to think like an exam. Not the stuff of mavericks (or whatever buzzword of the day is). Worse, an exam meritocracy promotes certain views over others reinforcing an already closed society.

What you get instead is an elite who are well... ideologically and intellectually incestuous. They cannot think outside the system, they perpetuate the system. This also explains (partially) why Singapore fares poorly in terms of 'talent'.

So far, I don't think I've said anything that no one has not said before. And I haven't grappled with the following issue defenders of the exam meritocracy might have, but I'm not going to deal with Shanmugaratnam's 'US has problems too' simply because that is little more than a 'you too' fallacy as well as a deflection of the issue. We are supposed to be discussing the Singapore. Let's discuss the following instead:

"So, the exam meritocracy may be flawed, but it's the only system that we have. It works (whatever that means, state lot's of statistics that don't prove anything etc...). A talent meritocracy is not necessarily better and Singapore being a small country has too little talent for a talent meritocracy to work any way..."

First off, I would say the above argument (strawman? but it seems like the cut and paste kind of argument I get to any question regarding Singapore) is a variant of a logical fallacy known as argument from ignorance and a blatant shift of the burden of proof. It proves nothing. No matter, I will still argue that a 'talent meritocracy' is necessarily a better one.

I believe that talent exists regardless of the system. I don't believe that the system only produces "people who think increasingly alike". The system does not create people, last I checked. The system only promotes (or deems meritous) "people who think increasingly alike". This may be just semantics for the time being... I'm getting to my point!

Thus the tragedy is this: Singapore already has talented individuals. The exam meritocracy does not promote such people in society, in fact, it actively discourages this. Imagine the number of talented people who do not make it because of the system (just think 'Einstein'-type arguments x 100). Now think of those who rise because of the system... those people are just safe and well... mediocre. Small population or not, we sure have lots of mediocre people.

How many Einsteins are there? One.
How many Sim Wong Hoos are there? One.
How many gajillion A1 scholars are there that also made it big? Zero.

Zero is less than one.

This is not just theoretical. Think of the many 'talented' Singaporeans... Sim Wong Hoo... OK.... Melvyn Tan... OK... What they have in common is that they are overseas (presumably in some 'talent' meritocracy) or 'quitters'. Now, think of our small population: 4 million. Now it is estimated there are 100,000 overseas Singaporeans... hmm... So if 4 million is a small number, 100,000 is even a smaller number. It's not even in the same order of magnitude. Why is it that talented Singaporeans are ALL overseas? By the small population argument (assuming linearity), for every 'quitter' Sim Wong Hoo, there must be 40 'stayer' Sim Wong Hoos. This is not the case.

I can come to the following conclusions:
1) The exam meritocracy works. It is just a coincidence that super-successful Singaporeans happen to 'quit'.
2) The exam meritocracy causes super-successful people 'quit'. Maybe we should switch?
3) The exam meritocracy prevents super-successful people from being well, super-successful in the first place. Switch to 'talent' meritocracy.
4) I live in the Matrix.
5) SPH lives in the Matrix.

A conclusion I am not allowed to come to is: It is genetic. Since I think 'quitters' and 'stayers' come from the same stock. Cultural (unless you consider an exam meritocracy part of culture) is also on shaky ground, but still can be arguable.

I haven't even touched on how Singapore is doing poorly in terms of talent against countries with roughly the same youth and populations (i.e. Israel, Taiwan, dare I still say South Korea?).

Some may say, "We don't need (unsafe) talents. We need only bureaucrats." I think bureaucrats will always exist regardless of the meritocracy. In case you never realised, so-called talent meritocracies have no shortage of bureaucrats too. In fact I think bureaucrats outnumber talent wherever you go. Why can't we have both 'talent' and 'bureaucrats'? Why do we need so many bureaucrats? What are we aiming to become? A giant Weberian bureaucracy?

Or maybe "the exam meritocracy caters to all..." I already said it doesn't because exams cannot account for all situations. Even so, it caters to people for the wrong reasons. Furthermore, the existence of an 'elite' in Singapore is a solid refutation of that.

You know, I just wish someone REAL would disagree with me... I'm sick of arguing with ethereal people.

That's it for now.