You are right. They do not have access to the same opportunities in that they do not enjoy the same socio-economic background, privileges or lack off etc. So not surprising to see most prestigious scholarships going to the middle and middle-upper crust of the society.

When I see the below

However, what if we postulate further conditions: what if the poor was helping out at his parents’ hawker store and does not hear of this supposed “equal opportunity”? Or what if this piece of news was announced through televised media, and the poor person is unable to afford a television? The poor person would not even know of this opportunity, much less say be able to enjoy this supposed “equal opportunity for all”.

I intepret it as, the poor do not know the opportunites avaliable to them. Which of course not really the case, the poor in Singapore knows exactly where and what they need to do to get ahead. It’s a matter of whether you are in the first lane or the 15th lane before the flag is waved.

Not all rights exist by themselves in a vacuum. More often than not, rights are built upon one another. For instance, the right to life can be considered the most foundational right of all, since without life, you can’t really enjoy your other rights.

Similarly, ‘equal access’ here is a necessary condition to be fulfilled before we can claim that we provide ‘equal opportunities’. In other words, if we are unable to ensure that everyone has equal access to opportunities, we cannot claim that we are providing equal opportunities. I think this is the role that equal access to opportunities plays in ensuring that equal opportunities are provided under a meritocratic system.

To apply it to the instance of the poor hawker’s child: indeed, we can assume that the child is undergoing state education, and the State attempts to level the playing field for all by providing affordable and subsidised education for all citizens. This all good and well.

However, if you think carefully about it, you realise that there is a problem here. First, let’s assume that the poor hawker’s child demonstrates a certain ability in academia amounting to a certain degree, and we we will just term this ability as X here. If we juxtapose the poor hawker’s child alongside the child of an oil tycoon who demonstrates the exact same X, I would think that it is far more likely for the child of an oil tycoon to fare better under the educational system, as compared to the poor hawker’s child. This is because the oil tycoon’s child is better equipped and position to access these opportunities which are provided to both the rich and poor child under the meritocratic system. Immediately, we realise that, for instance, the rich child’s mind is better focused on academia because he does not have to worry about tomorrow’s meal and other things like that; and these are the precise concerns which would affect the poor child’s mind and distract the poor child from his studies.

Given that a child who is better focused on his studies is more likely to do better in the examinations, a better score in the examinations would also mean that the rich child is better able to access opportunities provided to him as a result of his outstanding performance in his studies, whereas the poor child is denied such opportunities because he doesn’t make the grade. And let’s keep in mind that both the rich and the poor child are similar in terms of the type of ability that they demonstrate and the degree to which they demonstrate it.

How is this then a problem with meritocracy? This is a problem because meritocracy puts forth this claim: given that two individuals demonstrate the same type of ability and the same degree of it, the meritocratic system has no reason to reward one and not the other; the meritocractic system either rewards neither or it rewards both. And there is an inconsistency here, if we apply the above example I’ve raised: if the meritocratic system claims to reward the equally talented, why is it that the rich child has access to opportunities that the poor child doesn’t, even though both of them demonstrate X?

In this case, meritocracy fails to live up to what it has promised because even though it has provided equal opportunities, equal access hasn’t been ensured, and as a result, there exists an inconsistency between the claim put forth by meritocracy and how meritocracy actually works out in real life.

I hope this clarifies things.

Can you clarify further on what you meant by access to opportunies? Going by your example, I assume that the poor hawker’s child is going through a state education. With various streamings going on at various stage, not to mention the Cambridge examinations, I hardly think the poor child is going to be ‘unnoticed’ by his or her teachers and school administrators if he or she truly shines academically.

There are faults to meritocracy. Just that I can’t find it in your essay above.

i am skeptical about our economic and political model. can it be transplanted elsewhere? it maybe too premature for such presumptuousness. china, who mirrored us, is paying a hefty social price and the unraveling maybe their unmaking too – for good or for worse, depending whose report you are reading.

Firstly, I agree that severe social inequity does not fuel social progress. So no disagreement there.

Secondly, I don’t see how your point about a lack of jobs for university graduates relates to social equity.

In fact, it would seem to be that it proves social equity – economically developed nations are able to ensure that majority of their population receive a minimum of tertiary education and thus, with education as the great leveler, the poor are empowered to break out of their poverty cycle. With most, of not all, of their people enjoying unhindered access to higher education, it would seem that the social playing field is leveled. How far one would then go in one’s life then depends on one’s abilities, which is, honestly, beyond the government’s control.

I think a low rate of jobs creation for an increasing number of university graduates is not a problem that pertains to social inequity – I think it has more to do with the economic policies of the government, no?

Thirdly, this I do not understand – how are technological advancements supposed to assist in the construction of this ‘ideal society’? I suppose you are referring to more recent inventions, like the computer and the internet (I don’t think the Large Hadron Collider could be the elusive key to utopia right?). I’m not really sure how the computer and the internet are supposed to help us construct this ‘ideal society’.

inequity ravages the progress of society when the gulf widens between those with plenty and those barely surviving. thus, the progress that you claim is only superficial and not widespread enough. even then, progress at what costs? many advance countries are not seeing the benefits of higher learnings in their people because, there are simply not enough jobs created for graduates. so how equitable can that be? does equity now falls on the dice?

communist failed for many other reasons. we are not going back there, thank you.

Sadly, we do not exist in an ideal world. This world we live, this society we live in, is flawed and this is the reality that we need to recognise. Inequity will be permanent as long as human beings are diverse and heterogeneous.

Even in a functioning Communist state, which is often hailed as a model of society that best guarantees social equity, inequity is still bound to exist; perhaps in the different status enjoyed by members and non-members of the ruling Communist party.

Much less say ours. And it’d be fallacious to simply discard inequity as the malaise of society. Whether we like it or not, inequity powers the progress of society. When a poor child wishes to break out of the poverty cycle and become as rich as his friends, he knows that he needs to study hard, end up with a respectable university degree, and get a well-paying job. If the child manages to accomplish it, the value and benefits he has created for himself is substantial; the value and benefits he has created for society will be even greater.

But eventually, we need to draw a line. A line which tells us where inequity is too extreme for it to have any positive effect on society. And this is the line which I am referring to. I don’t think I am in any position to tell you where this line lies, but I think the signs would be clear if the inequity is so severe that it no longer creates any sort of positive effects for society.

tolerable equity? says who? the janitor? the factory workers? the regular joes and janes who are struggling to keep themselves afloat? the ones that are mouthing ‘tolerable’ are the ones with their mouths full!

and the not so famous quip: democracy if practiced correctly is in fact the best form of government except, meritocracy would derail it!