I refer to Alvin Chow Keat's letter (Inequality is meritocracy's unintended effect; Oct 29).

Shouldn't the case be "inequality is meritocracy's expected effect"?

Meritocracy was intended to bring out and reward the best of everybody, but the best of everybody can never and will never be equal.

A Chinese proverb states that a sharp awl in a bag of tools will easily pierce through the wrapping.

Much as we may wish, not all the tools in any bag are sharp. In fact, some are forever quite blunt.

Society must make sure that everyone has the opportunity to develop his inborn talent, if he so wishes. But not everyone has the same type of talent to the same degree.

Perhaps everybody should have the chance to learn to play Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star on the piano but not many can play Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's great piano masterpieces in a concert hall; and how many can write his own compositions at age six like Mozart?

When I look at any great engineering work I thank the thousands of labourers who make it possible. Some were maimed or even killed.

But my greatest admiration is always reserved for the architects in whose mind the structures were first built. There are not many of them.

Equality is idealistic but not realistic.

It cannot be achieved by meritocracy, democracy or even the wildest of human fancy.

To delete all inequalities is as ridiculous as an attempt to reduce all mountains to a vast plain.

Our greatest concern should be that none of the sharp awls in our bag is buried so deeply that it has no chance to pierce through.

Ee Teck Ee