Democracy vs Meritocracy: Project Superstar
Did anyone watch Project Superstar's grand final yesterday night?
The results of the competition vividly illustrated a point repeatedly brought up by pro-meritocracy politicians and scholars. That is, a democracy does not guarantee the final victory of the most capable candidate. I am sure those who have followed the competition closely would agree with me.
I do not have any preference for any partcular candidate. Neither am I saying that the competition is not fair. Anyway, there is no such thing as fairness in this world.
It is very obvious from the show yesterday that Kelly performed much better as both a singer and a superstar. I do not need to be a professional in order to make that judgement. Leaving his disadvantages aside, Weilian's performance was rather dissatisfactory. He was not able to put up his best even in the last 2 songs, where his disadvantages should not hinder his performance. If you have read today's Zaobao, his reason for that was "I ran out of energy as I let out too much (in the front segments)". Do you think, if you are a superstar, that should be one of your attributes? I agree, though, that his singing is solidly grounded.
Despite this, Weilian received 64% of the 540,000 votes received. (The telco received $108,000 in revenue.) Apparently, Singaporeans who participated in the referendum wanted Weilian to win. 64:36 is a huge advantage; it is highly unlikely that the result will change even if each person can only vote once.
Weilian's disadvantage has become an advantage towards himself. As Zaobao aptly points out, no matter how hard Kelly tries, she will not get her final victory. It is not because of sympathy; it is more likely because Singaporeans wanted to create some kind of history, legend, and to put across this message: we believe that we should give everybody a chance; we believe in equal opportunities. Putting it together, Singaporeans show their support to Weilian because they wanted to given him a chance to prove to society that disadvataged people can succeed. They wanted to see how he would work his way to success or succumb to his fate.
Judging by merit, Kelly should win. However, the less capable Weilian did. And this is what happens in a display of democracy without (much) constraint.
What do you prefer? It does not really matter to me who wins; as I know the person in second place will still make it subsequently if he/she puts in effort, gets sufficient support from his/her attached company and displays genuine talent. However, it looks like who you support protrays the kind of political ideal you favour. To me, only in a matured civil society where the citizenry is 100% capable of accepting and bearing the consequences of their decision can democracy without constraint be practised. Singapore is around 50 - 60% there.
Lastly, I want to point out something very interesting. I heard from my sister that our GCS gave a certain number of votes to a particular candidate (whose name she can't remember) in one of the previous rounds of the competition. It is rather surprising that 1. GCS is interested in Chinese Pop! 2. GCS is interested in participating in this kind of show and 3. GCS is willing to spend money on this kind of thing. Even I don't. By conspiracy theory there should be a higher motive behind this action. Kindly clarify. =)
3 Comments:
Servus! This is GCS commenting from Vienna. In order to support my blind hero, I have called 10 times, bought a cd and planted agents to help me ensure that he wins when I fly to Vienna. Why? Because it is good for Singapore! Like those who voted for him, we want to show the world that Singapore is indeed opportunity for everyone. I dont really think it is a question of meritocracy vs democracy. Meritocracy and Democracy are not mutually exclusive. This is especially true in singing, which has a highly subjective nature. I like the way he sings (no doubt to you, it may not be that good), his motionless posture on the stage. The market (audience) has chosen the blind guy using wider performance indicators. He has been voted the Superstar because of his merit. Afterall to the man on the street, it has postive social returns. Hey, if a blind guy can be superstar, perhaps I can aspire to a millionaire. Yes, a lot of Singaporeans want to create a legend in mundane Singapore. And I support that :)
Haha good for you! Evolution. Hope Vienna will help you evolve further. =)
Whether singing is good or "not-so-good" is not that highly subjective. I believe you know how to tell a good artist from a "not-so-good" one, although you may not like him because of one reason or another. And there are more than one performance indicators to consider.
It's the way you implement and integrate the systems to make it most beneficial to people that makes the difference. I benefited from the meritocratic system and I believe I may not survive as well in a system with more aspects of democracy.
I don't know what other intangible performance indicators you have in mind... Maybe you have seen yourself in the blind hero? The market wanted to create a dream, and I believe that is the main reason for Weilian's victory. And he did aspire a lot of people, including you!
Whatever that is, this is a program created for Singaporeans and the power is given to Singaporeans to choose their Superstar. The choice is made; and we should accept what that follows.
Well...from my point of view as a "musician", I would vote for Weilian. It's not really about his handicap which I feel won ppl over (though that'll definitely count in some ways). If you listened to his single, which is one real opportunity to hear him without seeing him (and his awkward movements), he did progress much more steeply than Kelly, whom I thought just didn't try as hard as Weilian, when she was the one with some few music coaches at hand (and that Weilian had none). I started out as a Kelly fan, but as the rounds dragged on, I just got more disappointed with her as she just didn't practise as hard as, let's say, the other female counterpart. Though she does have the attributes of a superstar, she's definitely not one I would hope ppl will make a role model of. Hence, I would say kudos to Weilian, who really toiled on and worked clearly harder than *ahem*. And yeah, competitions have nothing to do with meritocracy or democracy (in my opinion and experience). You've got to have ren2 yuan2 to really pull it off.
Good technique is really the crucial point, and well...Weilian has greater voice control than Kelly, who'll waver at some range of her voice...(okay, Kelly fans please don't bash me up.) Hence, I think it's not fair for the newspapers to keep emphasizing on the point that he's blind and neglecting the fact that he's got real talents too.
Post a Comment
<< Home