“We can’t justify allowing the rich to get richer if we don’t put in more effort to
prevent the poor from getting poorer”.
The view of egalitarianism states that all humans must be treated equally, with equal
rights and equal opportunities. In today’s world, this is not the case. The richest 1%
possesses two-thirds of the US$42 trillion of wealth created since 2020 (Oxfam, 2023).
In this essay, I would delve into how the failings of meritocracy can create complications
in social fabric in Singapore. I will also go into how society can enact changes to tackle
such concerns.
The gap between the rich and the poor is something that threatens the social cohesion
in our society. The differences the circumstances of the rich and the poor can elicit
feelings of jealousy and anger from the less fortunate. The relative deprivation theory
explains that the difference in one's expectations of standard of living and the actual
standard of living that they have the resources to sustain gives rise to such frustrations
(Davies, 1962). It is meritocracy that has exacerbated this gap.
Society has long advocated for meritocracy as a way to guarantee that everyone has an
equal shot at being successful. Contrary to this expectation, not everyone in our society
has an equal chance to succeed. Meritocracy in today's society, perpetuates the cycle
of poverty, oppressing instead of empowering the poor.
There are two opposing approaches to meritocracy, namely “trickle down” and “trickle
up” meritocracy (Vadaketh & Low, 2014). “Trickle down” meritocracy subscribes to the
belief that society’s elite should not be held back with measures such as taxes and
instead be enabled to drive the progress of society. This approach means that the woes
of the poor will be brushed aside in exchange for the utilitarian view that society as a
whole will benefit more. On the flip side “trickle up” meritocracy advocates for wealth
redistribution and giving the majority the ability to achieve their full potential.
Evident from the state of wealth inequality, our society has decided to follow the “trickle
down” approach. Singapore has adopted an approach that prioritises those who can
bring our society the most benefits.
Our meritocracy in the present has become a victim of its own success. Such a system
becomes fixated on sorting the best performers from the worst, as such may reward the
“winners” disproportionately to the “losers”. Unfortunately, these “winners” who make
into the circle of elite then write the rules of society in a way that would benefit their
future generations as well. Hence it is logical that they will prefer the “trickle down"
approach. As such the “winners” will carry on winning, while the “losers” will continue
losing (Tan, 2008).
While meritocracy prides itself on allocating wealth based on one’s merit, it fails to
consider the fact that different starting points of individuals can impact one’s
achievements. Despite its expectations, meritocracy perpetuates the disparity in the
starting points between the rich and the poor. There are a host of issues that may
impact one’s ability to achieve success purely on one’s merit, such as academic aids
and workplace connections.
In such an environment the rich can leverage on their financial capabilities to give their
children a head start. In modern Singapore, academic success typically translates to
career success. However, academic success at present can be influenced by other
factors. High income families can opt for premium kindergartens from a young age as
well as private tuition for their children, enhancing their academic performances (Rahim,
2014). Tuition culture in Singapore is very prevalent, with the tuition industry in
Singapore being worth S$1.68 billion in 2019 according to Accounting and Corporate
Regulatory Authority. Elite schools are also typically situated in the vicinity of affluent
neighbourhoods, which factors into children from affluent households typically being
from such elite schools (Vadaketh & Low, 2014). Apart from this Financial stability also
plays a role in academic performance. Financial insecurity in the household can also
take away focus from studies, as some youths may feel obligated to contribute to their
household financially, leading them to taking on work while studying or forfeiting their
opportunity at attaining higher education. Hence, financial capabilities can turn
meritocracy into a system that is unfair to the poor.
Furthermore, the rich can leverage on their social capital to extend their advantage over
the poor. Connections with alumni in top schools can also play a part in enrolling one’s
child to that school (Rahim, 2014). The rich have the ability to send their children to
prestigious schools, have access to exclusive events which provide networking
opportunities for their children (DiPrete & Eirich, 2006). Such connections also play a
key role in the private sector at all levels of the corporate ladder. Internships are
notoriously known for being connections based with a survey finding that 56.5% of
internships being acquired through personal connections (National Association of
Colleges and Employers, 2020). Having more access to information than others can
play a role in your job performance. Social connections also play a role in the speed of
one's careers progression (Kim & Choi, 2017). Such instances of nepotism, while this
goes against aspects of businesses’ corporate governance, they are still prevalent and
widespread in our society. This another way that the rich can accumulate advantages
over the poor.
These advantages that the rich have may then contribute to the breakdown of trust
between the rich and the poor. The feelings of resentment due to unequal opportunities
from the poor may create a divide between them (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2010). This gives
rise to feelings that the system is in fact rigged against them.
This situation is worsened by the fact that in a meritocratic society, people become
overly concerned with their own success and ignore the needs of the poor. While in a
“trickle down” meritocracy, society as a whole benefits, it is not important how such
benefits are distributed. According to (Vadaketh & Low, 2014), “When the form of
meritocracy that is practised rations rewards by relative performance, it promotes a
selfish, me-first mentality and potentially erodes desirable norms”. The “winners” in
meritocracy believe that even with all of the current system’s flaws, one’s success is
indicative of their talent or hard work. As such they will believe in their own superiority
and will shun those who may not have achieved the same level of success as them
Our society stigmatises the poor for not possessing the work ethic or the talent and
conclude that they are undeserving of any assistance. This is illustrated by frequent
remarks that homeless people or beggars can “just get a job”. Hence the poor are then
marginalised as under-achievers or having no value to society.
Government legislation has also reflected such attitudes towards the poor. The
Singapore government has much room to improve on its social welfare legislation. The
CPF system, which involves monthly contributions towards the ones retirement savings
signifies an attitude that people should take care of themselves. The government also
shies away from giving unemployment benefits, believing that this disincentivises
people from seeking work (Ng, 2013)
As a matter of fact, the Singapore government with its focus on enhancing foreign
investment from the wealthy from overseas, adopts pro-wealthy policies. Singapore has
relatively low tax rates in order to attract foreign investment and facilitate business as a
financial hub. Hence, income and wealth taxes, which are key mechanisms in the
redistribution of wealth has been kept to a minimum (Vadaketh & Low, 2014).
Singapore’s estate tax, meant to tax the wealthy’s inheritance was abolished in 2008
(Low, 2022).
Hence, the attitudes perpetuated by supposedly meritocratic values as well as
government legislations paint a picture of a society that is unsympathetic towards the
poor. Coupled with the existing structural barriers to upward mobility, these factors can
demoralise those who are born into humble backgrounds. Given the feeling that there is
a certain ceiling to what level of success they can attain, such people may feel resigned
to live their lives in a humble manner, sometimes even wasting their talent and failing to
reach their full potential. This will lead to a reduction of productivity in our society as a
whole. In a consumption driven economy, the alienation of the poor can also slowdown
economic growth (Stiglitz, 2012).
The loss of motivation as well as the alienation of this portion of society could very well
lead to violence in our society. Crime and the American Dream: An Institutional Analysis
explains that the failure of some to achieve success in America have led some to
turning to crime in order to acquire material wealth (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2017).
However, it is unreasonable simply to assume that the poor are more likely to commit
crimes because they are poor and desperate. Amaryta Sen states that the poor also are
more likely to commit crimes due to social factors as well such as alienation and cultural
divides (Sen, 2008). It is actually from this vein of thought, where Singapore’s potential
issues may arise. Poverty in Singapore has a racial dimension, with 9% of all Malays
belonging in the income group of $500 and below (Lee, 2001). Additionally, Malays are
labelled with stereotypes such as lacking work ethic, once again highlighting the issues
of the mindsets that meritocracy may give rise to. The social divides with regards to
both race and wealth inequality may thus provide a recipe for forms of violence to occur.
With the issues in our society presented, there are measures that our society can take
to improve our current situation. Most importantly, there must be an acknowledgement
from both the society and the government of this disparity. Singapore’s success has
turned the heads of our people in this materialistic society. Our own pursuit of wealth
has placed the less fortunate in the blind spot (Jen, 2019). Similarly, our government is
more concerned about our nation’s financial performance, with little regard for the
people who do not do as well. It is only when we face the problems then we can start to
think of strategies to combat the issue.
The key portion of said strategies will be focused on taxation of the wealthy. A
progressive wealth tax should be implemented more aggressively in the form of a
personal income tax divided by various tranches of income levels. Similarly, an estate
tax will mean that the rich will not be able to pass on all of their wealth (Saez, 2019).
The tax revenue can then be used to fund more social welfare assistance schemes.
They may come in the form of unemployment benefits or retraining programmes
provided by the government. While, unemployment benefits may be seen as
incentivising unemployment, high costs of living have resulted in their conditions
becoming too oppressive for one to overcome. Unemployment benefit thus provides an
individual the means to survive, while still encouraging their participation in the economy
(Di Magio & Kermani, 2016).
Next, the ability of the wealthy to use their social capital must be addressed. Stricter
anti-nepotism and compliance policies must be made as a requirement for corporate
entities to prevent the widespread impact of connections in the workplace. This includes
emphasis on hiring policies (Gavin, 2012).
The final change is that we as a society must change the way we view the poor.
Individual mindsets must shift from seeing money as an indicator of ones worth and
focus on humanising the struggles of the less fortunate. Instead of seeing them as a
blemish on the image of Singapore’s success, Singaporeans must develop empathy for
them, something that is becoming less and less common in today’s cold and
materialistic society.
Singapore’s meritocracy was a key driver in Singapore’s rise to the top, from a fishing
village to the key financial hub that it is now. However, this very same system has the
potential to threaten the social harmony that our society is so proud of. Hence, we must
acknowledge these issues and seek to make changes expeditiously.
References
Oxfam. (16 January, 2023). Retrieved from Oxfam: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-twoyears#:~:text=The%20richest%201%20percent%20grabbed,half%20of%20all%20new%20wealth
Davies, J. C. (1962). Toward a theory of revolution. In American Sociological Review (pp. 27(1); 5-19).
Rahim, D. (4 April, 2014). Meritocracy as Myth. Retrieved from
http://poskod.sg/Posts/2014/4/4/Meritocracy-as-Myth.
Vadaketh, S. T., & Low, D. (2014). Hard choices: Challenging the Singapore consensus. NUS Press.
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2020). Internship & Co-op Report . Retrieved from
https://www.naceweb.org/store/2020/internship-and-co-op-report/,
Kim, T., & Choi, Y. (2017). Social network effects on executive career mobility: A study of hiring and
promotion in the executive labor market. In Human Resource Management (pp. 56(4), 653-666).
Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hrm.21805
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Klitgaard, R. (1988). Elitism and Meritocracy in Developing Countries: Selection Policies for Higher
Education. JSTOR.
Ng, I. Y. (2013). Social Welfare in Singapore: Rediscovering Poverty, Reshaping Policy, Asia Pacific Journal
of Social Work and Development.
Low, D. W. (2022). Here are five ways Singapore could increase taxes on the rich. Retrieved from
Bloomberg News: https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/blog/here-are-five-wayssingapore-could-increase-taxes-on-therich/#:~:text=Singapore%20abolished%20its%20so%2Dcalled,their%20assets%20to%20the%20c
ountry.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today's divided society endangers our future. WW
Norton & Company.
Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2017). Crime and the American dream. Routledge.
Sen, A. (2008). Violence, Identity and Poverty. Journal of Peace Research,.
Jen, W. T. (2019). [REVIEW] “TEO YOU YENN’S This is What Inequality Looks Like”. Retrieved from Cha
Journal: https://chajournal.blog/2019/10/16/inequality/
Saez, E. (2019). Progressive wealth taxation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(4), 37-60.
Lee, W. K. (2001). The poor in Singapore: Issues and options. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 31:1, 57-70.
DiPrete, T. A., & Eirich, G. M. (2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of
theoretical and empirical developments. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 271-297.
Tan, K. P. (2008). Meritocracy and Elitism in a Global City: Ideological Shifts in Singapore. International
Political Science Review, 29(1), 7-27.
Di Magio, M., & Kermani, A. (2016). The Importance of Unemployment Insurance as an Automatic
Stabilizer. Retrieved from Harvard Business School:
https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/17-009_e68959ed-8e3d-4e06-95d13985f4e73ebb.pdf
Gavin, J. (2012). Preventing nepotism in the workplace. In A cautionary tale. Business Horizons (pp.
55(1), 71-80).