We want meritocracy, but…

Meritocracy is often seen as the antithesis of affirmative action. It promotes competency and rewards excellence. For those of us who have seen a tad too much of undeserved favouritism as a consequence of the New Economic Policy (NEP) and its successors, we wonder, “Where is fairness?”, and meritocracy seems to be the magic cure for our ailing society.

A society based purely on meritocracy without due consideration of other factors, however, can be problematic. Meritocracy may sounds great in theory, but there are other things to be considered for its implementation to achieve the desired goals.

The difference between a theory and the application of the theory is that, when we deliberate on a theory in the academic and intellectual setting, we hold all other things equal (ceteris paribus) so that we could test if variable X affects variable Y and what is the nature of the relationship between the two variables.

In the real world however, a thousand other variables work simultaneously and an unlimited permutation of possible events, interest groups, and vested individuals could positively or adversely change the course of an event and the intended impact of the said theory.

The first time that I questioned my enthusiasm for pure meritocracy is during the annual general meeting (AGM) of an organisation which I used to be part of. In the election for new committee members, there were more than enough candidates to contest for the available positions. But one thing was knocking on the back of my mind – the racial balance of the new committee.

This happens almost every year. We – the voters, candidates, and election observers of all races – would often seek a balanced racial composition in the committee, sometimes explicitly but most of the time implicitly. We become very concerned when the projected possible outcome is an all-Malay or all-Chinese committee. It is deemed necessary that the committee should be racially representative and inclusive.

We want meritocracy and the best candidates, but we also want racial balance and unity.

To me, this self-conscious act to establish balance is better than some organisations who do not pay attention to this matter at all. To be capable of self-examination and reflect on the needs of the community is an admirable thing, what’s more at the organisational level. I’m not saying that there must be a racial quota, but the incident got me thinking: Even those who oppose racial quota and racial discrimination is implicitly bargaining and hoping for a racially balanced outcome.

To avoid misunderstanding, let me first explain what I mean. Suppose that you belong to Organisation A. If you are Chinese, and 20 out of 20 newly elected committee members are Malays (or vice versa), what would you feel? Now switch your position to that of the majority race.

If you do the quick thought experiment above, notice that you are more conscious of certain critical or negative thoughts on the election outcome when you are in the minority race (“Did they vote based on race?”, “Did all the Malays [or all the Chinese] collaborate?”, “Did they intentionally left us out, and why?”), whereas you tend to play down the consequences of racial imbalance when you are in the majority race (“Race doesn’t matter that much if the committee do a good job”, “This has nothing to do with race”, “It’s okay as long as they perform their task”).

This only applies at the group level. At the individual level, if the winning party consists of only one race, the race variable of the candidates may not be as contentious as it is at the group level. For example, if you are a Chinese, it’s acceptable to have a Malay as the president of your organisation (or even the vice-president as well). But if all 20 members of the committee are Malay, you are likely to feel that something is wrong.

Thus, I’d argue that if this trend of racial imbalance continues in the long run, it will cause uneasiness and withdrawal of support and participation from certain population of the neglected/isolated group.

In the social sciences, we are trained to identify key factors and the relations between them. Race was, is, and will be a consequential factor in Malaysia. If we have a pure form of meritocracy which excludes race from its consideration, that pure meritocracy is unlikely to achieve its good-intentioned goals, but instead, create more uneasiness, and isolation.

No one in Malaysia truly desires a society based on pure meritocracy. A meritocracy without due consideration to class inequality would result in all the scholarships being taken by the urban, upper-middle-class kids who receive the best education and private tuitions.

Meritocracy without due consideration to gender bias would preserve the status quo which is overwhelmingly favourable to men (how many female MPs and CEOs are there in Malaysia?). Meritocracy without due consideration to race would create anxiety, perception of unfairness, and ironically, discrimination.

We implicitly assume that meritocracy will produce competency as well as a racially balanced outcome, but that is not always the case. It is not impossible that in a given organisation, certain individuals of one race are more involved and hardworking than the other. If 17/20 committee members are Chinese, and three Malay get the last three spots, while no Indian, Kadazan, or Iban get a position at all, would we be fine with it?

Even the defunct Pakatan Rakyat recognised that pure meritocracy is not a viable thing in Malaysia. DAP appoints several Malays into the central executive committee. PKR appoints a Chinese vice-president and an Indian vice-president.

For all their angst towards Barisan Nasional’s power-sharing racial formula, they know that some sense of racial balance needs to be established. Whether it’s to enable the team to reach out to more people, to appear more inclusive, or to build harmony and unity, racial balance will always be relevant in Malaysia.

While the new generation is, hopefully, doing away with racial politics and racial discrimination, we need to ask ourselves what are we going to replace the old structure with once it is dismantled. We should start by having an honest conversation. The answer may ultimately lies on how we walk the tight rope between two desired objectives. Meritocracy is important; but unity is important, too. – July 4, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.