The debate about equality, meritocracy and social justice as applied to the Malaysian context, and as interpreted by interested ethnic activists, both Malay and non-Malay, can be confusing.

Perhaps I should start off with by saying that inequality is a painful phenomenon. In any society, some people have more education and wealth, and others have less. No o­ne regards inequality as a virtue, and inequality in a perfect world should not exist. Nevertheless, if I may quote a famous thinker and writer, Thomas Sowell, nature is notoriously unco-operative with our moral categories.

In a plural society some ethnic or culture groups have more, and others will have less. These differences can be an enduring source of inter-ethnic tensions and resentments. I hope to clarify some competing ideas o­n social inequality and social justice.

To take just a few random variables, intelligence, physical attractiveness, charm, charisma, speaking and musical talents, athletic ability, and inherited wealth are not evenly distributed throughout the population. Neither are natural resources such as oil, water, mineral deposits, agricultural farmlands or human capital distributed evenly between nations. Life is therefore manifestly unfair if we view it from the perspective of distributed talents and resources but such inequality is not unjust (unless we want to say that God is unjust).

As I have previously pointed out in an article in malaysiakini ( Kwayteowsup ), culture has consequences. It impacts o­n variables of human capital such as acquired knowledge, acquired learning, acquired skills, individual determination and perseverance, acquired experience, and foresight. Chinese immigrant communities that have repeated their achievements whether in Southeast Asia or North America attribute their relative success to culturally ingrained attitudes towards money, education and work.

If o­ne person, group or nation is more successful than another - that is, if there is manifest inequality, do we then automatically presume this to be due to some unfair and unjust historical, social or legal advantage? A real life example pointed out by Sowell comes to mind. He describes poor Lebanese immigrants who set up shops and businesses in colonial West Africa, and become a very successful business community in comparison with the colonial whites who do relatively poorly.

The Lebanese succeed because they offer lower prices for their goods. They can do so because they live o­n less, and are frugal in their habits, and so survive quite happily o­n thinner profit margins. The Lebanese work longer hours to gain more customers, and take the time and trouble to truly understand the Black Africans who form the bulk of their customers. They have a greater ability and willingness to sacrifice other things in life for the sake of commercial and business success.

Will we therefore say that the Lebanese immigrants were advantaged in some way such that they have succeeded unfairly and unjustly against the whites? To my mind, the playing field was not level to begin with, and if anything the Lebanese would have to face real disadvantages in terms of social discrimination within a white colonial administration. And yet they succeeded.

Social justice can perhaps be viewed in two entirely different and contradictory perspectives.

One might view social justice perhaps to be best represented by a set of laws which give no preferential treatment for anyone at all regardless of race or culture group. In other words, justice will be blind to you as an individual, and no peeking will be entertained.

The other way of viewing social justice will be to always presume some form of historical or economic or social disadvantage to be at the root cause of present social and academic disappointment or inequality or under-performance. As such preferential laws could be enacted to redress these automatically presumed disadvantages and injustices (historical or present) to ensure this form of social justice.

In my mind the first form of social justice risks not addressing the very real disadvantages of the poverty-stricken, and the attendant real disadvantages that arise from it, such that we may fail to provide equality of opportunity.

The second vision of social justice tries perhaps to render equality of outcome regardless of inequality of performance or productivity. It is not so much a question of not practising meritocracy but human societies generally become rapidly unproductive and inefficient if they fail to reward its more productive members (think of any communist country). In a globalised economy, a failure to develop or maintain competitive advantages of human capital can o­nly spell progressive impoverishment for all segments of Malaysian society. This second vision of social justice is therefore not without cost.

The alleged reasons for inequality in economic and academic performance can be a rich source of politicking, posturing and rhetoric by ambitious ethnic activists and politicians. Do our present policies encourage equality of opportunity for all ethnic groups? o­ne hopes that the more educated classes will be able to think these issues through rationally for the good of all.