2007-01-19T20:25:00.000-08:00

Assignment 1 - Government in SingaporeFor this first assignment, you are to blog about your thoughts on the government.a. Using the information you have learnt from Chapter 5, you are to find a current policy that portrays any one of the principles of governance.b. Give your view on the policy you have chosen.

The topic I am doing is on meritocracy. Singapore government practices meritocracy. The definition of meritocracy is a system of government or other organization based on demonstrated ability (merit) and talent rather than by wealth, family connections (nepotism), class privilege, determinants of social position and political power. Therefore, there are many who believe that a meritocratic system is a good thing for society.
Meritocracy had played significance roles in shaping Singapore over the past few decades.Among modern nation-states, the Republic of Singapore claims to be a pure meritocracy, placing a great emphasis on identifying and grooming bright young citizens for positions of leadership. The Singaporean interpretation places overwhelming emphasis on academic credentials as objective measures of merit.

There are pros and cons to the meritocracy system.

There are many advantages to meritocracy. When people are rewarded based on their abilities and hard work, they will be encouraged to do well, so that this ensure that only the best can led the country so the country will be an efficient one. Unlike non-meritocractic countries, which are weak because of the weak leadership of incompetent leaders that gain the position because of nepotism, meritocractic countries like Singapore have capable leaders so the government will be strong and stable.

Meritocracy also distingushes the talented from the normal people. So that these talents will focused on their profession and work hard to contributed to the government. The normal people can also become these ‘talents’, only if they work hard. Then, their efforts will be reconisged and they would be rewarded. Thus, these rewards encourages every individual to work hard if they want to become more outstanding than the rest.

With meritocracy, everyone tries to work hard and strive better than the others, thus creating competition. With more competition, everyone will comtinue improving and improving and thus meritocracy helps to make the whole population to develop his or her potential to the fullest.

Not everyone agrees that meritocracy is good. Meritocracies can also be seen a way to organize people in business by pointing out their significant downsides such as the risk of bias and subjectivity, pitting people against each other by creating winners and losers, and making people fear failure and thus diminishing their appetite for taking risks. Thus, with less people taking risk, not many people can make it big and express their talents even though they have the potential to lead the country.

Many Singaporean corporations and workers embrace the principle of meritocracy - that people are individually recognized and rewarded for their accomplishments and contributions to their employers. Yet policies that allow a few winners to reap most of the rewards seem to be pervasive in many large organizations and are responsible for creating ambition-driven, money-obsessed elites. It therefore may be better to divvy up performance rewards more broadly and equitably rather than concentrate a big pile of money for the elite few.

Providing more opportunities to more people to reap relatively few big payoffs as the Economist recommends won't eliminate income inequality and elitism. This doesn't promote meritocracy in my view but another form of hierarchy, albeit one much flatter and with far more wealth concentrated at the top. Indeed, with layers of middle managers removed and companies making increased profits, there has been far more to go around to a smaller group of people. This elitist approach is one reason why there are so many overpaid CEOs while the compensation growth of the majority of workers has remained flat.

The issue then is not whether meritocracy is good or bad but how to do it right. What should the logic of meritocracy be - that the most talented receive a large share of rewards or that all performers are rewarded commensurate with their contribution? There is no doubt that top talent is important, but leaders should be seeking to leverage and reward the contributions of all talent, not an elite few. They would be wise to forget about fighting and winning talent wars but instead strives to create a meritocracy of the many rather than an autocracy of the elite.

2007-01-16T23:44:00.000-08:00

social studies rules!!!!!!

social studies!!!!!!!!!