What do they mean by meritocracy?

 

A politician in Sarawak recently stated that meritocracy would be the basis for admitting young Sarawakians to the state’s universities. He didn’t offer any details about the method or process, nor did he define what meritocracy in this context actually means.

To Americans, meritocracy is a “motherhood and apple pie” topic – something obviously good and beyond debate.

How could you not agree with meritocracy? It would be sacrilege to question it.

 won’t try to disagree either, but I’d just like to raise a few points relevant to any discussion of meritocracy in education, and in life, too. In other words, meritocracy in real life, as opposed to meritocracy as defined in the dictionary.

First, the word meritocracy has a bad reputation in Malaysia. It’s shorthand for what many non-Malays are unhappy about — the lack of it! Similarly, Malays become defensive when they hear the word, seeing it as an attack on their status and privileges.

There are good reasons for the angst surrounding the term.

Discrimination

What started out decades ago as affirmative action in education has degenerated into grotesque, institutionalised discrimination by the Malay political, bureaucratic, and religious classes.

Many Malays, myself included, feel embarrassed when the topic comes up, especially when we’re lumped together with those who happily exploit the system to their own advantage.

I often feel like screaming at some of the Malays, “You’re perpetuating injustice and screwing up your own future, making yourself weak and forever dependent on crutches!”

At the same time, I also feel like screaming at some of the non-Malays, “Don’t throw meritocracy at me when you’re not smart enough to lick my boots!”

Too often, meritocracy is used simplistically to mean just high grades. This may have been acceptable in the past, when the only way of measuring intelligence was through scoring highly on exams.

Real intelligence

It’s generally accepted now that the measure of intelligence is broader than just a figure on an IQ test. There are emotional and other aspects of intelligence that make us not just scientists, but also artists, athletes, caregivers, and even skilled workers.

You probably know someone like that yourself. My mechanic is barely literate, but after five seconds of hearing my car engine (often running badly), he can diagnose the problem, and in no time, he’s fixed it.

That’s a type of strong intelligence right there.

The same goes for some frail, delicate person who, given a brush or a microphone, transforms into a marvelous painter or singer, reaching deep into your soul and stirring something inside you.

We all have some combination of intelligences, the value of which depends on society’s willingness to accept them.

For far too long, however, the only one accepted was IQ, which has left a large segment of humanity — the unschooled ones — in the shadows.

More than high marks

I hope that when the meaning and definition of meritocracy in Malaysia is announced, it will be more nuanced and varied than just “whoever scores the highest marks.

If meritocracy ends up being purely about exam grades, then it’s simply rewarding the past. Over time, this will lead to an even more unjust society, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Such a scenario never ends well, if history is any guide.

Many years ago, I revamped the scholarship programme for my employers because scholarships were consistently going to children from wealthy families — those who had received the best education and advantages from the moment they were born.

My revamp involved examining many more aspects of young people’s intelligence, beyond just exam scores.

In a tough, aggressive corporate environment, factors like resilience, emotional intelligence, persuasion skills, and emotional stability are often more critical, yet they are frequently neglected in the selection process.

A test of ability

I have always been more interested in assessing what a person can do in the future rather than focusing solely on their past. I’d rather take a chance on someone with a great attitude, hunger, and desire than on someone with a great exam score.

It’s sad to see how the noble intentions of earlier affirmative action efforts became corrupted into a political game that ultimately harmed many of the citizens it was meant to help, including those it was meant to protect and promote in the long run.

At the same time, don’t be too eager about meritocracy without understanding that it can be just as toxic as many other “good” ideals.

And don’t forget that the purpose of public education is to help those handicapped by the lottery of life to gain the same privileges and opportunities, so we can end up with a fairer, more just society.

I can’t wait to hear what Sarawakians mean when they talk about “meritocracy.” I’m looking forward to a wise, intelligent, and just definition, one that focuses on the future rather than the past. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.