I am puzzled by Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad's response to Jeffrey's letter, in particular his statement that the meaning and implementation of 'meritocracy' may be different for the different ethno-religious groups.

I have always thought that meritocracy means that the person who is best able to do the job should get the job. This would sometimes be obvious, for example, that the fastest sprinter should represent our country in international sports.

When it is not so obvious, we should look for the qualities that would best predict whether that person can do the job well, e.g. a person who shows more proficiency in natural sciences is more likely to be a good doctor than a person who shows less proficiency.

In the context of religion, meritocracy would mean that those who excel in religious matters should be responsible for the religious well-being of the community and country. But it doesn't mean more than that.

From this Malaysian's viewpoint: yes, there is materialism in Singapore and there is meritocracy in Singapore.

But all it means is that Singaporeans know that to satisfy their materialistic needs, they have to be persons who are best able to do the most lucrative jobs, so that they can enjoy the riches that come with it. Society benefits by having the best people producing goods and providing services in each job.

Without meritocracy, the people with the lucrative jobs - those valued by society - are not those who are best able to perform them. This loss is borne by society, i.e. everybody else.