Mr Alvin Chow Keat's letter shows a misunderstanding of the principles on which meritocracy is predicated (Inequality is meritocracy's unintended effect; Oct 29).

Inequality is actually built into meritocracy's operating DNA.

By rewarding performance on very narrow conceptions of what is worth rewarding, meritocracy actually rewards natural ability as well as social, cultural and economic capital passed on from one generation to the next.

It legitimises the "winners", and marginalises the "losers". In the absence of social transfers, this engenders inequality, solidifies class lines, and reduces social mobility, which in turn exacerbates and entrenches inequality.

When the word "meritocracy" first appeared in the British journal Social Commentary in 1956, and later in British sociologist Michael Young's 1958 satirical essay, The Rise Of Meritocracy, it was used pejoratively to allude to the post-war British government's substituting an equally unjust system based on intelligence and scholastic aptitude for one based on bloodline.

In view of the rather derogatory origin of the word, it is ironic that the Government continues to pride itself on making meritocracy the linchpin of our policymaking.

If we are genuinely sincere in wanting to tackle the problem of inequality, we should delve deep into its root causes and come up with innovative and truly transformative solutions, instead of just making tweaks to the current system. No sacred cows, not even meritocracy, must be spared if we truly desire to strengthen social cohesion and create a more equitable society.

Leong Yan Hoi (Dr)