'Fast-track meritocracy' does not bring 'the best' to the fore, but rather relies on existing biases to identify them. It is only the sum total of the intelligence of the people, given its maximal egalitarian development, that is able to produce the best criteria by which 'fast-trackers' may be best identified.

At present, we have various levels of discrimination in this country, along with the acutely partial intellectual development of the people. Putting these two perspectivally debilitating conditions together, we cannot produce a criteria by which 'fast-trackers' may truly be discerned.

Preparatory work at the ground level must first be done. The consequences of injustices can affect generations, and it will take some time before those who’ve been reared within such a scheme of things to be weaned off their socialised proclivities.

In a country that sinically fetishises tradition, conformity, subservience, uniformity,

…which in turn makes one more susceptible to the salient as opposed to the detail, and the superficial as opposed to the essence,

…and which in turn leads these people to fall back on mere power, position and prestige for the exertion and maintenance of control,

…it serves as a foundation for the emergence of a whole a la carte-load of bigotries,

….that goes into the formulation of the lines between the lines of the criteria comprising 'meritocracy'.

It is a false idea, just a good-sounding word, a spin to justify things that people who has a say wants to be.

The fundamental flaw in "merit" is that people are all individuals, and each is very different, even between twins. In other words, take any measure, and someone will naturally be better of than another, just by the fact that he is what he is, and conversely the other is worst off, again just because he is.

We use "merit" to motivate, ie I say the one more hardworking, more loyal, more obedient, as deserving more "merit"; or I can use "merit" to justify fast tracking the careers of President scholars, here academic performance being deemed "merit".

So "merit' really has no meaning, it is simply spin for you to justify what you do to people, and in a way that is seemingly fair and those without "merit" having no grounds to complain. And also there can be no accusation of favoritism or nepotism. But really "meritocracy" are just new clothes.

So I think we can drop this whole false facade of fairness and egalitarianism and things will immediately become better. For instead of ranking or promoting people by "merit", it will be far better to just simply say you value industry or loyalty or academic performance or physical prowess or obedience or whatever, more than anything else. Then at least I know where I need to "perform", if I want to perform at all.

And you put someone in a position because you assess he or she can do the job, whatever "merit" being irrelevant. (And if "merit" was "performance" at a lower level job then you may end up with Peter's Principle.) And if that person then failed in the job, then not only the incumbent failed, but the one who put that person also failed in his performance as an assessor of potential performance. Again no need to resort to any idea of "merit" whatsoever.

The problem of course is when u have a job to fill, you may not know who is best suited to fill the job, if it is other than your son or friend to do it. So you make some criteria and so on, and attempt to rank people based on this criteria, and you call this process meritocracy, ie the one most deserving according to your measures gets the job.

But no measures are perfect and if you are wise you will still end up with a heavy dose of subjectivity and intuitive knowledge of persons, eg referees, if not depending entirely on subjective assessments altogether.

The person you eventually chooses, is someone you deemed can best do the job, with some maybe unknown error margin, and not that he is somehow "measured" and came out ahead of everyone else.

It is really more a reflection of your – or the combined – state of knowledge at that time and not of any true merit per se. And people not chosen are not necessarily without merit but maybe just unknown.

Meritocracy In Singapore, A Mythical Illusion – http://wayangparty.com/?p=7969

Old and new citizens do not get equal chance in Singapore – http://wayangparty.com/?p=7665

Rethinking the meritocratic education system – the case for welfare – http://wayangparty.com/?p=7503