I have been following with great interest the recent turbulence encountered by Penang deputy chief minister P Ramasamy in his political career.
I must say that I am neither a fan nor critic of Ramasamy. My interest stems entirely from the fact that Ramasamy has recently been in the spotlight for demanding that meritocracy be applied in the civil service.
Ramasamy’s party, DAP, has long championed meritocracy.
Of particular interest to me was Ramasamy’s reasoning and rationale for wanting to retain his seat in the Penang state assembly, and the party’s response to it. I was hoping this would shed more light on what meritocracy means to DAP and Ramasamy.
Considering that both the party and Ramasamy are staunch proponents of meritocracy, one would think that the Perai assemblyman would argue that he is “on merit” the best man for the job, whereas the party would suggest that it has someone better in mind.
It appears, however, that the public is not privy to such arguments.
Instead, Ramasamy was recently quoted as saying: “I want to serve my party for one more term and I have stated this publicly. No one can be in this position forever. I will leave it to the party to decide.”
That to me seems like a public declaration by Ramasamy to his superiors that he has sufficient merits to be nominated for another term of office as an assemblyman.
Ramasamy was also quoted in the same report as saying that he has good standing with party leaders and a good relationship with the federal government.
For good measure he adds that his outspokenness on matters that the party or government remain silent about does not necessarily mean he is opposed to the DAP leadership.
Clearly, Ramasamy believes that good relationships with one’s superiors matter.
This appears to conflict with his belief that civil service appointments should be premised on a candidate’s own merit and capability, and not the preferences – or even the whims – of the candidate’s superiors.
In another report, a “party insider” claimed that Ramasamy is liable to be replaced as he does not belong to the camp that controls the party.
This viewpoint suggests that “merit” is also dependent on the underlying concept of “camp”.
According to this proposition, one’s merit is not measured individually, but by the totality of the position of the camp that he finds himself in.
If one’s camp wins, then everyone in that camp will be deemed to have merit and will be given a prominent position within the organisation. Conversely, if his camp loses, he may be liable to lose his position as well, regardless of individual merit.
In this scenario, “merit”, it seems, is very much tied to the idea of collective control, rather than just individual competence.
This then begs the question of what exactly Ramasamy’s dispute with the civil service is.
He must surely agree that “control” brings with it “merit”.
If he does not disagree with the concept at party level, why does he have issues with it being applied in the civil service?
Ideally, we would associate merit with key performance indicators (KPIs), but the question of whether Ramasamy should be nominated by the party to run for the upcoming Penang state election does not appear to be centred on whether he has met his KPIs, whatever they may be.
When Lycurgus, the legendary Lawgiver of Sparta was implored to form Sparta on the lines of democracy, he responded with the line: “Begin with your own family.”
That was to make known that if an idea cannot succeed in modest surroundings with one’s own people, it was likely to fail when put out on a grander scale.
It will bode well for DAP and Ramasamy to take their time to contemplate long and deep the counsel of Lycurgus.
If merit is not the only consideration in DAP’s own house, what is the point of preaching it to the rest of the country? - FMT
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.