Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Drawbacks of government
intervention: Quotas can in fact
achieve the opposite effect as it is
a form of positive discrimination.
They could lead to increased
resentment against women if it is
perceived that women are hired
over men only because of the
policy and not based on their own
capabilities. Also, quotas address
the symptoms but not the root
cause of discrimination. Just
because women now make up a
certain percentage in parliament
or in the boards of companies
does not mean that the attitude of
society in general toward women
will change. For example, in
Sweden, despite the great strides
made in the political sector
towards equality, the figures in
corporate management have not
kept up - Swedish women hold
only 30% of managerial positions,
while the wage gap between
males and females can exceed
40% in these high-end jobs.
Recommended approach:
The proposition challenges the widely held assumption (especially in
Singapore) that meritocracy is the means to eradicate unfair
practices. Students ought not blindly refute the statement and
proceed to blindly extol the virtues of meritocracy by citing
Singapore as an example. Instead, they should consider the
conditions necessary for meritocracy to work and circumstances
under which the system becomes an unwitting aid to the creation of
an elite and contributes to the widening social chasm
Consider situations in different countries. Make references to various
social inequalities. Examples of situations in these countries should
also be included
Possible arguments:
How meritocracy creates a more equal society
Merit-based selection recognises ability rather than connections.
such as nepotism, cronyism and reliance on familial connections
(e.g. the Suharto era in Indonesia, the Thaksin familys business
successes)
Why meritocracy fails function as a social leveller
Widespread acceptance and practice. In particular, those higher up
on the social ladder might perceive newcomers as threats (even
though they are competitors). If the former withholds opportunities
and the law does nothing to enforce the latters rights, then the
society is only meritocratic in name and is practised only among the
elite who compete or the opportunities among themselves. (e.g.
entry into medical school for lower caste students in India)
In societies with vast income disparity, there is a need for the
government to put affirmative action policies (e.g. financial
assistance, quality education, healthcare) into effect. If there is no
external assistance to extricate them from the vicious cycle of
poverty, the talented would remain among the dregs scrabbling for
survival rather than develop their potential and acquire the means
to competing to excel. (e.g. university places reserved for African
Americans in the USA)
No: Prejudice can never be eliminated as its root causes are perpetual and
recurrent to the human condition despite our present levels of societal
progress.
(iv) Is it unsolvable?
The answer could be :
(1) Education (formal, informal, through the media) >> for a more enduring inculcation of
values and development of understanding
(2) Laws >> an important tool for engineering society
(3) Look at current or recent initiatives that show some success. The ability to emulate
and adapt good efforts gives hope that the problem can be overcome. Add a view of the
bigger picture : The history of humanity is filled with evidence that major transformations
can take place such as the rise of democracy or industrialisation. Hence, it may be too
soon to dismiss prejudice and discrimination as unsolvable problems
To show that something is inevitable or unsolvable, you may need to show that
Not enough time, money, human resources, technology, political will and
discipline have been put into making these solutions (like education & law) work
*** If those with power and influence benefit from prejudice and discrimination, they
would be less willing to change.
>>> Meritocracy may be regarded as a fair reward system that judges people only on
capability and supposedly removes prejudice against race, religion, nationality, age, sex,
or family or economic background. Unfortunately, it can still contribute to prejudice. This
can happen when the reward is very great, like an overseas scholarship.
Understandably, the reward should not be too small because there must be enough
incentive to excel. But a great reward that opens many doors then becomes too
competitively fought for. Earning it consequently brings prestige to the triumphant, but
results in the failures being relegated to the courses, schools or jobs that were not their
first choice. This is how prejudice is planted against the people, schools or jobs that are
regarded as not being the best. However, the solution cannot be to throw out the reward
system altogether. There are root causes that have not been addressed, even while a
well-meaning meritocracy is built. One such cause could be the false belief that winning
these rewards makes someone more worthy of respect. Conversely, those who are less
successful are believed to be incompetent, and thus not worthy. A society that does not
weed out damaging false beliefs will undermine other efforts to stop prejudice.
(v) Final word on the problem
At the end of the day, looking to a higher value or a higher purpose is essential in order
to find a way out of this problem
>>> For the problems of prejudice and discrimination, the question is whether all
societies will come on board and embrace the idea of equality among men.
YES: Having more female political leaders makes the world a better place
as they possess attitudes and capabilities that enables humanity to
overcome major international and national challenges that have thus far
been poorly addressed by male dominant political leadership.
E.g. A recent report found that the proportion of women in the boardrooms
of companies listed on the Singapore Exchange (SGX) rose to 7.3%.
Some may argue that since only 7.3% of women are in the boardrooms,
there is a significant gender bias. However, real equality does not dictate
treating every individual equally. Singapore practices equality, governed
by meritocracy. It is only through such a practice can Singapore
accommodate and assimilate the different individuals concerned.
Thesis 3:
Equality is ingrained in Singapores social fabric, individuals share a
communitarian belief and have lived harmoniously.
Singapore was formed amidst division. It was a migrant state that was
deeply contested by language, race and religion. Deep-seated tensions
were persistent during Singapores early years and it perpetrated through
the 1969 Racial riots.
However, since that incident, Singapore has witnessed a congruous blend
of various communities. While students recite the words, regardless of
race, language or religion, to build a democratic society, based on justice
and equality in the pledge every day, adults have also ensured that this
notion of equality is not only a belief but a way of life. It is not uncommon
to see various individuals of different races working harmoniously.
Eg: Racial Harmony Day commemorates the 1964 Race Riots and
celebrates Singapores success as a racially harmonious nation. Various
racial communities which used to practice racial tolerance have since
learnt to overcome their differences and live in harmony.
Thesis 4:
However, there are still some areas in which prejudice and stereotypes
continue to exist despite the efforts by the government to promote
equality for all. Singapores meritocratic system seems to favour
intellectuals and this can be seen from the growing income inequality.
The income growth of the topmost quintile was almost double that of the
lowest quintile. Furthermore the current median income of $4870 is much
lesser than the current mean income of $6830. The income distribution is
so skewed that more than half the people earn only two-thirds of the
average wage.