Leon Perera: Rejecting a meritocracy that creates a natural aristocracy

In his speech at the Budget 2023 debate on 23 February, Mr Leon Perera, Workers' Party Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC, focused on the question of "what kind of meritocracy do we want in Singapore?" He suggested that while meritocracy has its merits, there is more that can be done to promote equality of opportunity and social mobility. Mr Perera pointed to a book by Harvard Political Philosophy Professor Michael Sandel entitled The Tyranny of Merit, which he recommended to all members present. While not agreeing with all the arguments made in the book, Mr Perera believed that the current state of meritocracy in the US is used as a tool to justify inequality and condescension towards those without university degrees. He suggested that this was an unfair game, where certain individuals have advantages such as genetic endowments, social capital, parental guidance, and resources that others lack. He believed that a focus on vocational and trades jobs was necessary to balance out the advantages now conferred by a university degree. Mr Perera acknowledged that it is important to ensure a more level playing field and social mobility but argued that this alone does not justify the vast and ever-increasing gaps in income, economic security, and social respect between those who do well in the academic and job arenas and those who don't. He proposed a meritocracy that strives for both equality of opportunity and social mobility, while also ensuring a decent standard of living and societal respect for those who are less successful in conventional terms. "There is a strong case for raising floor levels of living standards and dignity for those who have skills that are less marketable, but doing so in ways that are economically sustainable, like retraining and so on. We should reject the notion of a natural aristocracy of merit where the more successful behave like aristocrats did in feudal societies." Mr Perera also highlighted the issue of inequality in Singapore society, particularly among the younger age groups. He cited a survey by OPPI that showed that while Singaporeans overwhelmingly believed in meritocracy, younger Singaporeans, especially those aged between 18 and 25, have a lower belief that Singapore society is equal and fair compared to the older age groups. He explained that many younger Singaporeans are struggling to live a holistically meaningful and purposeful life due to the intense competitiveness in Singapore, both at work and in academia, coupled with the high cost of living and housing. In addressing the need for a new kind of meritocracy in Singapore, Mr Perera acknowledged that jobs should go to people with the best ability, but he questioned whether gaps in income and economic security need to be so large to achieve a high-productivity, innovative economy. He pointed to countries like Sweden and Denmark that generate entrepreneurism and economic dynamism with smaller gaps. He argued that a meritocracy that promotes social mobility and reduces income inequality, while ensuring economic sustainability, is necessary. He stated, "To be sure, meritocracy has its merits. Jobs should go to people with the best ability. Ours should not be a society where we punish those who can invent, lead, create, take responsible risks, inspire others, even as we strive to uplift the least advantaged. We need a high-productivity, innovative economy to grow the pie. If we fail in this, the poor will be hardest hit."










