some thoughts on meritocracy

7/28/2019 SOME THOUGHTS ON MERITOCRACY

1/17

SOME THOUGHTS ON MERITOCRACY

Meritocracy or mediocrity JULY 02, 2013

Syed Nadzri is editor-in-chief of The Malay Mail. He can be contacted [email protected]

JULY 2 Certainly there has to be a more refined way to skin this slippery cat called education.

Abolishing meritocracy in the system and returning justice to Malay students, as proclaimedever so loudly last week, might not do the trick at all.

In fact, the call by Malay Consultative Council president Tan Sri Ibrahim Abu Shah at an

education convention in Kuala Lumpur could in the long run be dangerously

counterproductive to the Malays themselves.

An emotional pitch like Today, meritocracy has created Chinese supremacy. There is nothing to

benefit Malay students would no doubt reverberate on certain political platforms and get heroic

recognition in the process.

But frankly, apart from uplifting the seasonal semangat nusa dan bangsa images, what else does

it do? What does abolishing meritocracy mean?

Yes, some affirmative action is needed to address under-achievements affecting the whole Malay

community.

And yes, Malays are capable of gaining greater excellence if all round they get equal

opportunities or are given the right push.

What this means is actually clear enough if there are shortcomings in getting the best out of

rural Malay students, fix them for heavens sake. Not create backdoor solutions.

If they rightly deserve scholarships to study abroad, be a little flexible to enable them to qualify.This is the practical solution without having to resort to lowering the bar.

Perhaps we could just call it guided meritocracy which does not necessitate the abolition of

meritocracy at all.

Sometimes we wonder why the phobia towards that word. Fear of competition? Lack of

confidence?

1


2/17


3/17

It simply means a painful inability to adapt. It is akin to being blotted out as a result of a stubborn

refusal to move with the times.

Thats worse.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/opinion/syed-nadzri-syed-harun/article/meritocracy-or-mediocrity#sthash.ISswqh3J.dpuf

Meritocracy not fair to Malay students, saysrights group

BY ZURAIRI AR

JULY 02, 2013UPDATED: JULY 02, 2013 04:58 PM

File photo of

students at a rally to celebrate Malaysias 55th National Day in Bukit Jalil Stadium on August 31,

2012. The Malay Consultative Council says meritocracy in education will hurt the changes of

Malay students. AFP picKUALA LUMPUR, July 2 The disparity between urban and rural

schools means merit-based education will be injurious to Malay students chances, a coalition of Malay rights NGOs has asserted.

At a press conference today, the Malay Consultative Council (MPM) also decried the state of

education today for producing youths who are ignorant of the nations history and the special

rights of the Malays.

3


4/17

If youre on the same playing field, then you can apply meritocracy ... Otherwise in the end its

like stabbing your own self, the chairman of MPM steering committee, Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Hilmi

Ismail, told reporters here.

(If) you introduce meritocracy, youre stabbing the Malays who have

the special rights to be awarded scholarship.

Hilmi claimed that the power to award scholarships had previously belonged to the Yang di-

Pertuan Agong, but suggested that his authority has now been usurped by meritocracy.

The government these days has lessened the power of the Agong. Theyre using meritocracy

instead, he said.

MPM steering committee member Tan Sri Prof Ibrahim Abu Shah, who is also the former deputy

chancellor for Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM), had last month proposed that the education

system be restructured in order to return justice to Malay students.

Today, meritocracy has created Chinese supremacy. There is nothing to benefit Malay students.

Imagine Malay students only make up 35 per cent of those in higher education institutions andthe rest are Chinese, Ibrahim said during a forum titled Malay and Bumiputra Education

Convention last month.

In terms of scholarships, Malay students have failed to dominate the allocation of scholarships.

Last year, 80 per cent of Chinese students received scholarships as they obtained outstanding

results based on the governments policy of meritocracy. he said.

Other Malay academics who echoed Ibrahims opinion were former education department

director-general Alimuddin Mohd Dom, and Retired Educators Association president Raof

Hussin, who was Ibrahims fellow panelist in the forum.

In 2002, the then prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had replaced the racial quota system

for public university with meritocracy to spur healthy competition among Malay students.

The quota system had previously reserved 55 per cent of university places for Malay and

Bumiputera students.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/meritocracy-not-fair-to-malay-students-says-rights-group#sthash.5jM3fuQv.dpuf

4


5/17

Meritocracy, Malaysia-styleInjured Malaysians

8:22AM Jul 10, 2003

The outcry on the unfair policy and criteria used for university admissions is not new.It has been going on as long as I can remember. Somehow, a new term called'meritocracy' has been coined to facilitate admission on perceived 'non-meritocracy'basis. Well, this sandiwara (charade) is not new. This has always been the case.Subsequently, other parties within the BN fold would get the so-called 'concessions'and then thump their chest on how they have been able to resolve it within the BNspirit.

However, what ought to have been done is that, as provided for under our federalconstitution, the aggrieved parties should take this matter to the courts to determineonce and for all whether there is justice and transparency in the selection basis - asin the American case.

It is not a question of winning or losing but it is a matter of whether citizens' rightsaccorded under the constitution have been observed. Isn't it painful to read that achild with 11As could not get a government scholarship whereas one with 9As wasable to.

The Education Ministry, perhaps, ranks the highest in the order of perpetuating andnurturing such racial policies. Successive education ministers have gone on tobecome prime ministers and none, I mean none, have ever thought that a child whohas been deprived of educational opportunities based on race despite standing toqualify based on merits will only grow up with polarised views.

Suddenly, everyone seems to talk about racial polarisation. I grew up nurtured bymy mother that we have to be very loyal to the government and the ruling party andI have been supporting and voting for the BN-based government during elections butas I grew up and became a victim of the racially based policies I was deeply hurt anddriven to belief as to why should I ever vote for the BN.

For the first time in my life I voted for the opposition during the last election - notbecause I love the opposition but I am so fed up with the BN government. It is nouse to suddenly come up with the idea of re-introducing the Rukunegara as SitiZaharah recently announced. Would I ever believe in it? Never

Meritocracy and Free Competition: The only way for Malaysiaby Tony Fernandes (Notes) on Monday, February 23, 2009 at 10:07pm

5
http://www.malaysiakini.com/browse/a/en/Injured%20Malaysianshttp://www.malaysiakini.com/browse/a/en/Injured%20Malaysians


6/17

I applaud Datuk Nazir Razak and this resonates with a call let's have more brave leaders. Nomore hiding behind the government, monopolies and protectionism.

Shortly after I posted my views on innovation I was thrilled to read CIMB Group CEO, Datuk Nazir Razak's bold comments on how the government should show economic leadership in these tryingtimes. Among his suggestions that really stuck with me were the review of the New EconomicPolicy (NEP), how the government should venture out to acquire companies and brand namesabroad and how Malaysia can attract the best talent.

Datuk Nazir Razak

When I think about it, I see Nazir's comments reflect the ideals and philosophy behindSingapore's Temasek Holdings. Although government-owned, they do mean business when itcomes to the way they operate. The sort of returns on investment they generate each year bear testament to that (yes, yes, I am aware of the big hit theyve taken in the current downturn but youknow what I mean). But it was the recent decision to appoint Chip Goodyear, an American andformer BHP Billiton boss, as the new CEO that demonstrates how serious they are about runningTemasek like a real business.

Like all Fortune 500 companies, Temasek casts its net wide and makes sure it lures the best andthe brightest. I take my AirAsia cap off to the Singaporeans for this. They may have a reputationfor being ultra-straight-laced and total conformists but this is one radical trail-blazing move for allSovereign Wealth Funds and State-backed companies everywhere to try and emulate.

Chip Goodyear

Now wouldn't it be great if our GLCs took the same tack when hiring for the top posts? Weneedn't even have to look beyond our borders: Malaysia has a large and deep enough talent poolto supply a multitude of leadership candidates who can help our GLCs compete on the worldstage. I really cannot agree more with Nazir's call for the review and restructuring of the NEP. It isprobably the single most important factor that is preventing Malaysia moving from good to great. Irealize the important role it has played in narrowing the economic divide between races. But there

is empirical evidence to show that there has been little incremental benefit over the past twodecades. It's a 39-year-old machine that is broken, running on empty and which desperatelyneeds to be fixed.

And heres no better time to do it than now. The global economic turmoil presents a goldenopportunity to embrace change (apologies to Obama). Think of it this way: The economic pie isalready shrinking at home and if we don't fix our fundamental problems of improving our education system, nurturing talent, and rewarding the best minds the pie will shrink even more.We must have the courage to seize this opportunity to truly reform.

These are all the values that we aim to promote in AirAsia. We try our best to make our staff aware that opportunities are always there for them to switch careers or take on moreresponsibility or become leaders, as long as they have the desire and the passion to work

towards their goals. Some of our cabin crew have moved into the marketing divisions and somewho've had enough of pencil-pushing in accounts have taken up the challenge to fulfill their life-long dream to be a pilot!

Someday when I am too old and have to step down from my position as CEO, we will have tohunt for a new chief for AirAsia too. If the new boss was Malaysian, that would be a bonus butregardless of his or her race, class, religion or nationality, I have no doubt that we'll be cherry-picking only from amongst best.

6


7/17

The answer is meritocracy. That's what Datuk Nazir is talking about, and what Temasek ispracticing when it chose Chip Goodyear. Its what globally-minded private corporations practiceas well in hiring their most senior managers (think Sony, Pepsi, Toyota, Coca-Cola, and Nissan).Its what the World Bank did when it appointed Justin Yifu Lin from China as its chief economist one of the most influential positions in the global economic hierarchy.

Lets make a start down this road in Malaysia. We dont even need to go outside our borders. Wehave so many talented and creative Malaysians right here at home. Lets use them all. We mustensure that these talent remain here and is not lost to those poaching the best. This is a call for Malaysian companies to be more efficient or risk losing out in the bigger picture. This also mustbe said, that I feel that the government should not hold back free enterprises just to protect theinterests of government linked companies (GLCs). The spirit of privitisation in industries andembrace of innovation should be embraced and not frowned upon. This is an age that calls anddemands brave leadership or we will find ourselves deteriorating into an economy lagging behindin ASEAN.

When I write about my Labu journey, you will see how this post is so relevant to what we are allfacing in Malaysia. When young innovative bright companies are held back back by slow movinginefficient monopolies, what happens is we simply lose great ideas and talent to our competitorsthe world. Are we content to only play second fiddle and fall behind all the time?

Malaysias Bumiputera Policy and SingaporesMeritocracy: Time to move on?

The public sale of Malaysian newspapers is banned in Singapore. Likewise, theMalaysian government does not extend the same privilege to the Singapore media.So when the main Singaporean English daily, The Straits Times carries twocommentary pieces written by Malaysians in Chinese and proceeds to translate andpublish them one day after another coincidentally, one day before Prime MinisterLee Hsien Loong delivers his National Day Rally there is usually more to it thanmeets the eye.

On 27 Aug 2010, the Straits Times published a commentary written by Lu Pin Qiang(Singapores path to success worth studying) that first appeared in the MalaysianChinese daily, Sin Chew Jit Poh , where the writer praised Singapore while criticizingthe Malaysian New Economic Policy (NEP) and the lack of meritocracy across thecauseway.One day later, on 28 Aug 2010, the same paper published a commentary written byXue Shu Qin (Singapore through the eyes of a Malaysian here) that first appeared inthe widely read Singapore Chinese daily, Lianhe Zaobao . In the article, the writergenerally pursued the same themes Lu Pin Qiang raised a day earlier, disparagingMalaysia and Malaysians (Malaysians do not care whether Malaysia is good or bad;they care only about themselves and their community), with the usual disclaimers(I am not blowing Singapores trumpet) that come at the end of similar piecespublished in the Singaporean mainstream media.

7


8/17

The Malaysian road to nation-building after separationfrom Singapore in 1965 is often employed by the mainstream media, PAP politiciansand PAP grassroots activists to amplify the apparent success(es) of Singapore incomparison to Malaysia. Specifically, the Malaysian affirmative action program thatfavours their local Malay community, euphemistically referred to asthe bumiputera policy, is usually identified as the reason behind everything that iswrong about Malaysia today.Introduced in 1970 in the aftermath of 1969 racial riots, many of the Malay politicalelite specifically, Malay leaders in the largest Malay political party in Malaysia, theUnited Malays National Organisation (UMNO) concluded that the absence of anaffirmative action program for the majority Malays would only serve to widen theeconomic gap between the Malays (then comprising about 55% of the population)and non-Malays (Chinese circa 35%, Indians circa 7%).

Of all the local communities, the Chinese community controlled the greatest share of the Malaysian economy following Malaysian independence in 1957. After all, oneneeds money to grow money, and considering the economic status quo of the 1960s,Malay leaders opined that their community would only fall further behind if someform of intervention was not taken to correct the economic mismatch.

Lee Kuan Yews dictum of a Malaysian Malaysia in the heydays of merger from 1963-65 with equality for allraces as its mantelpiece while theoretically enlightened and apparently equitable did not adequately take into account the reality of a large majority of MalaysianMalays who were unlikely to benefit from the wonders of meritocracy given theirstarting position of abject poverty and low or non-existent levels of education. Thelatter fact is one the Singapore media almost never analyses or considers in any

8
http://singapore2025.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/independence_clip_image002.jpghttp://singapore2025.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/windowslivewritertundrismailsviewsonthespecialpositionoft-baeatun-dr-ismail-thumb11.jpg


9/17

serious detail: The acute economic backwardness of the Malaysian Malay communityin the 1960s, and its abjectly minor representation of 2.4% in the Malaysianeconomy.

The bumiputera policy in Malaysia was technically to have come to an end in 1990.However, its utility in keeping the Malay elite in UMNO in power and its ability tosecure the Malay vote rendered it too important a political tool to be dispensed with.

In more recent times, UMNO popularised the notion that the NEP has not succeededin its initial objectives of uplifting the Malays, with figures touted to prove that theMalays still held less than 30% equity in corporate Malaysia, the original NEP targetpercentage. This substantively unbending stance on the bumiputera policy has drivena dagger straight into the heart of Malaysian society.What UMNO shrewdly hides from the Malay community, is that its vision of upliftingthe Malays is tied to support for UMNO. For a Malaysian Malay to succeed in moderntimes, it is not enough to be a bumiputera . He or she has to be an UMNO-putra aswell. As things stand today, the economic performance of the Malay community inMalaysia is lop-sided. Many remain relatively poor, while the UMNO-putras areexceedingly rich.Fortunately for Malaysia, discerning Malays have seen through UMNOs ruse, andresponded through the ballot box. In 2008, the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition lostits 2/3 majority in parliament. To a large extent, the electorates stance was aresponse to UMNOs strategy of politically hijacking the bumiputera policy and arejection of the endemic corruption that continues to ensue from it.

In Malaysias public sector today, non-Malay representation is acutely low. In about forty years, the Malaysian Chinesecommunitys demographic percentage has dwindled from 35% to around 25% today,mainly due to emigration and a lower Total Fertility Rate as compared to otherMalaysians. In addition, Malaysias economic prospects are stymied partly because of the hemorrhage of Malaysian minorities to other countries. In the private sectorhowever, the Malaysian Chinese are still doing reasonably well, with many Chinesebusinessmen able to negotiate the bumiputera policy with political savvy and anintimate understanding of the political economy that underwrites UMNOs existence.For working class non-Malays however, the only handouts they can expect from thegovernment are tied to political support for the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition. Theabsence of political support from them simply translates into less or no governmentalassistance for any community that does not back the incumbent political leadership.In this regard, Barisan Nasionals position is not too different from the SingaporePeoples Action Partys (PAP) attitude in denying government grants for theopposition-held constituencies of Hougang and Potong Pasir. In effect, the politicalincumbents in both countries, the Barisan Nasional in Malaysia and the PAP inSingapore, penalises citizens who exercise their democratic rights to elect politicalcandidates who are not from the ruling party.

9
http://singapore2025.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/protest-011-edited.jpg


10/17


11/17

Resident (PR) status. The latter choice is not surprising. It allows these Malaysian PRsthe opportunity of returning to Malaysia should the political status quo change. InSingapore, Malaysian PRs can purchase HDB flats. Some even hold superscale-appointments in the Singapore Civil Service even though they are not citizens. Quiteseparately, bumiputera policy or not, at current prices, retiring in Malaysia isfinancially a lot less burdensome than retiring in Singapore. And the dislocative

effects of the bumiputera policy aside, Malaysians of all races and religions generallyget along relatively well with each other, a state of affairs not too different from inter-communal relations in Singapore.In light of Singapores voracious appetite for immigrants, Malaysia represents anideal talent pool. Malaysian Chinese and Indians integrate seamlessly into our bodypolitic by virtue of the almost identical cultural norms in both countries. Compared tonew Chinese citizens from China, a Malaysian Chinese is a preferred immigrant forthe same reason indicated above. It is perhaps with this policy objective that we seethe contributions of Lu Pin Qiang and Xue Shu Qin finding their way into the op-edsections of the Straits Times , views that are symptomatic of some of the realfrustrations of non-Malay Malaysians today.Lu contended that Singapores meritocracy is one where people can attain theirgoals based on merit and not connections, nepotism or corruption, regardless of theirbackgrounds. In addition, she stated that Singapore hosted a level playing field forall, with nobody given special attention or discriminated against by national policies.

The reality on the ground is a tad more nuanced than Lu observed.

Meritocracy, like the Malaysian Malaysia of the 1960s is a wonderful

theoretical ideal. In actuality, it represents a destination that must continually bestrived for, with the other eye set firmly on the pitfalls of meritocracy. Singaporesmeritocracy, is far from perfect. In fact, in light of the growing gap between the richand poor today, one would not be remiss suggesting that its utility as a nationalideology to inspire Singaporeans is coming under increasing strain (A point made byKenneth Paul Tan in the highly readable Management of Success SingaporeRevisited edited by Terence Chong [ISEAS: 2010]).

11
http://singapore2025.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/049874.gif


12/17

British Labour Party MP Michael Young, the man who

invented the term meritocracy more than 50 years ago, warned against the dangersof a society singularly organised around merit in a book titled The Rise Of TheMeritocracy, 1870-2033: An Essay On Education And Equality . Young had posited thedevelopment of a stratified polity defined by intelligence and educational selection,both of which determined social status and standing. The cream that emerged fromthe selection process would go on to take up the top appointments in society, andostensibly secure top salaries.In time however, Young predicted that what appeared to be a fair and equitablesystem would morph into something ugly, inflexible and downright discriminatory,with the meritocratic system revealing itself to be an age-old manifestation of themankinds millenarian struggle against the politics of class.

Youngs book foresaw in 2033, a Britain governed by an elite of 5% of the total

population who look down on their rest of society as inferior in intelligence andeducation. Without access to good schools and opportunity, the less well-off members of society perform poorly in school and even worse when compared to theelite. They remain ensconced in the poverty trap and are socially immobile. Naturally,95% of the nation regard the elites with contempt, and it only becomes a question of time before the entire society collapses into oblivion.

Youngs fictional premonition is not too far removed from the minds of someSingaporeans. The elite Administrative Service is already seeing(http://www.adminservice.gov.sg ) the children and family members of some servingPAP politicians, career Administrative Service officers and top-managers ingovernment-linked companies joining its ranks, portending the prospect of a cabal of individuals that mutually reinforce the political (PAP) and administrative leadership

perhaps even giving birth to an elite within an elite.A separate canard to Lus simplistic assessment of Singapores meritocracy is thereality that the profile of many of government scholars entering public service doesnot wholly dovetail with her notion of a level playing field for all, with nobody givenspecial attention or discriminated against by national policies. That said, it would bea stretch to argue that pro-active discrimination is endemic in Singapore. However, itwould not be in the realm of fiction to contend that a passive, subterranean ornegative form of discrimination does reveal its dark side on the Singapore canvas.

12
http://www.adminservice.gov.sg/http://singapore2025.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/merit1.jpghttp://www.adminservice.gov.sg/


13/17

Separately, one publically available statistic in Singapore starkly portrays the growinginequality and sociological limits of meritocracy. In 2008, it was revealed that only47% of Public Service Commission scholarship holders lived in public housing, i.e.HDB flats, where in excess of 80% of all Singaporeans reside.

Even more damaging for the long term development of Singapore, the meritocratic

system has resulted in young scholarship aspirants giving textbook answers to thePublic Service Commission (PSC), in tune with the political culture and the ethos thatshapes the pro-PAP mainstream media policy in Singapore. In an open letter toschools, parts of which were published in the Straits Times on 25 Jul 2009, PSCChairman Eddie Teo described how some PSC scholarship candidates,.would give politically correct answers and appear to be pro-Government,thinking that would impress the interview panel.He said quite a few candidatesgrew uncomfortable when asked if they would act against someone in authority. Onecandidate, for instance, was asked what he would do if he found his superior wascorrupt. He refused to answer, saying he disliked dealing with such a case.

The most apparent qualititative shortcoming of meritocracy in the context of nation-building can be observed by the relatively poorer socio-economic position of theMalay community in Singapore. While a handful have done well, Malays are grosslyunder-represented at the highest echelons of the military and in the civil service. Thiswriter is not aware of the numbers of Malays or Indians selected for the SingaporeAdministrative Service after their undergraduate studies. If one could hazard a guess,it would probably only reinforce the point vis--vis under-representation. While therelative absence of minority races at the highest levels of the executive can beexplained away on the grounds of academic performance when compared againstthe majority Chinese, it would not be misplaced to argue that such optical disparitiesharm the national fabric and cast aspersions on the qualitative meaning of meritocracy in Singapore.

While no one is expecting specialtreatment for the Malays (or any other Singaporean) like in Malaysia, some of thequestions on every fair-minded and loyal Singaporeans lips ought to be: How do webreak the poverty cycle not just some of our Malays find themselves in, but our

Chinese, Indian and Eurasian compatriots as well, and in doing so, strengthen ournational fabric or the Singapore Spirit? And how can Singapores meritocracy becomequalitatively meritocratic in line with our multi-racial and multi-religious nationalvalues? Since the PAPs Cabinet Ministers are the richest state-paid politicians in theworld, many Singaporeans feel the answers to such questions ought to be on top of their minds, especially in view of their multi-million dollar salaries.

The questions above are not posed with an altruistic purpose in mind, complete withairy-fairy notions of a comfortable and easy life for all Singaporeans so as to create autopic level playing field. Often, PAP MPs and grassroots leaders mind-numbinglyrespond to campaigns for greater support for our low-income workers with dire

13
http://singapore2025.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/23maypedrabranca1.jpg


14/17


15/17

the PAP should work singularly towards building a Singapore where the publicdiscourse is not marked by the visceral reality of race, but a qualitative andsubstantive meritocracy Singaporeans of all races can be proud of.Ends.

_______________________

Newspaper Articles referred to in the opening paragraphs.Aug 27, 2010

Singapores path to success worth studyingLu Pin Qiang

I BELIEVE many people would agree if one said Singapores Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was one of the most successful politicians in recent times. I believe, too, that noone would object if one said his methods of governance were worth studying.

Speaking at a dinner held recently to mark the Republics National Day, he said: If one day, our communities become divisive and hostile towards one another; if theyare not united and the bonds of national cohesion are weakened, the country will godownhill.

MM Lee attributed Singapores improbable success to four factors.

First, having leaders of integrity who have the trust of the people to build a strongfoundation for nation-building.

Second, having a meritocracy, where people can attain their goals based on meritand not connections, nepotism or corruption, regardless of their backgrounds.

Third, having a level playing field for all, with nobody given special attention ordiscriminated against by national policies.

Fourth, using English, the most common language in the world, as the workinglanguage of Singapore. This has enabled the country to avoid marginalising minorityraces and to become the commercial, industrial, financial and communications hub itis today.

These remarks from MM Lee should absolutely be studied and reflected upon by allcountries.

No doubt, the conditions in Malaysia are different from those in Singapore. But justthink: Malaysia has plenty of natural resources and wide tracts of land, yet why is itno match for tiny Singapore? Whether it is the economy, international fame or thecredibility of its government, Malaysia is always far behind Singapore and trying tocatch up.

How did it turn out this way? Singapore carried out nation-building. So did Malaysia.Singapore has joined the league of First World countries; Malaysia is still a ThirdWorld country. At bottom, there is only one answer to the question. That is, the twocountries chose different paths right from the start.

The path Malaysia chose was not based on any of the aforementioned four factorswhich MM Lee cited for Singapores success. Given the political scandals andcorruption controversies that have occurred in Malaysia over the years, can thecountry really have an upright and trustworthy leadership?

15


16/17

Does it have meritocracy? Under the New Economic Policy (NEP), are Malaysiansliving in an environment where policies favour some and discriminate against others?Has Malaysia avoided marginalising minority races?

After we have answered the above questions, Malaysians should be able to reflect onwhy they are what they are today. Do Malaysians continue to pin their hopes on the

NEP or the National Economic Model? Are they going to stick to the same path?It is time to change course!

This commentary first appeared in the Sin Chew Jit Poh, a Malaysian newspaper, onSunday.

________________________

Aug 28, 2010

Spore through the eyes of a Malaysian hereXue Shu Qin

BEFORE even realising it, I had worked in Singapore for more than half a year. Fromthe time I was young, I have had inexplicable feelings about Singapore chiefly, Ithink, because my mother is Singaporean.

Singapore is a prosperous nation. Managing its separation from Malaysia in 1965must have been a highly challenging task for the new nation. Fortunately for theRepublic, it was brave enough to leave Malaysia, otherwise it would not haveachieved its prosperity today.

During my mothers time in Singapore, people had to rear pigs and chickens tosurvive. But today, Singapore is a modern nation.

This is a case where the grass is always greener on the other side. Singapore, in theeyes of us foreigners, is an advanced nation. Perhaps many would be only too glad tobecome its permanent residents or citizens, but I see that many Singaporeans areunhappy with their country.

Some think it is not good enough, others think it is lousy, and yet others cannot waitto emigrate from Singapore.

This is common in life. One is never satisfied with what one has, thinking that onesneighbour has a better deal. Singapore, which is far beyond the reach of usforeigners, is nothing but a small state to some Singaporeans.

Mr Lee Kuan Yews hope that the Singapore tomorrow will be better than what it istoday reveals his expectations for the Republic. In contrast, my country Malaysia is

mired in mud, rejecting help from others.Perhaps it does not wish to leave the mud. Malaysians do not care whether Malaysiais good or bad; they care only about themselves and their community.

Having been in Singapore for a while, I miss home. But when I compare my countrywith the city-state, I am really disappointed with my country.

We have potential but we are not motivated. We seem to be complacent about thecurrent state of affairs and do not move with the times.

16


17/17

some thoughts on meritocracy

Documents