Pearls and Irritations

Throughout history, ideas and innovations have flowed between East and West, with each civilisation learning from the other. One profound exchange was the transmission of Chinese civil service notions to the Western world in the 18th and 19th centuries. This adoption and adaptation of Chinese administrative practices shaped the development of modern governments globally.

The origins of merit-based public administration in China trace back to the imperial examination system, established during the Sui Dynasty (581-618 AD) and developed further during the Tang (618-907 AD) and Song (960-1279 AD) dynasties. Based on Confucian principles, the exams tested candidates’ mastery of the classics, literary skills, and moral character. Those who passed these competitive exams became “scholar-officials” known as “mandarins.” This system established that the most capable and ethical individuals should be chosen for high administrative office through public examinations open to all.

The exams created a path for social mobility, enabling individuals of humble origins to rise in the civil service based on their merits and efforts. This ensured a government staffed by a professional, educated class specialising in various administrative aspects.

As Europe engaged more with China in the 18th century, Western thinkers admired this model. Enlightenment figures like Voltaire, Leibniz, and Hume praised the Chinese examination system as a rational and equitable method of selecting leaders. The British East India Company (EIC), recognising the effectiveness of the mandarin class in administering a vast empire, emulated aspects of the Chinese system to govern the British Raj and expanding territories in India. The EIC adopted competitive examinations to recruit and promote its civil servants, moving away from the patronage system. It developed a specialised and hierarchical bureaucracy, with officers trained in revenue, justice, and diplomacy. While access remained limited to the British elite, the ideals of meritocracy and impartial government took root.

These innovations in India inspired reforms in Britain. Reformers in London looked to the EIC’s model to address inefficiency and corruption in the British government. The landmark Northcote-Trevelyan report of 1854 recommended competitive exams and merit-based promotions for the civil service, citing the Indian example derived from Chinese practices. The Civil Service Commission was created in 1855, marking a significant step towards a more professional and meritocratic public administration in Britain. This pivotal step in developing a modern professional civil service in Britain served as a model for public administration throughout the British Empire and beyond.

As the British colonial bureaucracy evolved in the later 19th century, it continued to be shaped by Chinese and Indian administrative practices, even as it took on a distinctively British character. The Indian Civil Service and Colonial Service became known for their rigorous selection processes, ethic of public service, and political neutrality and incorruptibility—values echoing Confucian ideals of the mandarinate. Across the empire, the British transplanted this model of apolitical, merit-based administration, from Sudan to Malaya to the Caribbean. In Singapore, this model would later inspire China.

In the late 20th century, Singapore, under Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership, transformed itself from a struggling post-colonial nation into a thriving global hub, thanks to good governance characterised by a clean and efficient civil service, strict anti-corruption measures, and a commitment to meritocracy. Deng Xiaoping, seeking to reform China’s bureaucracy in the 1970s, was impressed by Singapore’s model.
The admiration led to a “Singapore fever” in China, with officials visiting Singapore to learn from its practices. Key aspects of the Singapore model, such as merit-based hiring and promotion, competitive salaries for civil servants, and a focus on excellence and incorruptibility, were adapted to the Chinese context. The reforms played a crucial role in China’s transformation.

While China’s policy formation process remains under the Communist Party’s control, it increasingly resembles a modern civil service in the Singaporean and British mould—a far cry from the politicised and patronage-ridden administration of the Maoist era. The ancient Chinese model of meritocratic officialdom had been transmitted to the West, evolved, and finally returned to China in a new form.

Today, as China assumes a greater role on the world stage, the question of legitimate governance is more pressing than ever. The Chinese experience offers an alternative to Western liberal democracy—a model of effective administration and material progress under a strong central authority. The long history of exchange between Chinese and Western statecraft traditions reminds us that no civilisation has a monopoly on political wisdom. In an interconnected world facing shared challenges, there is much we can learn from each other.

Only by respecting and understanding the political philosophies and practices that have shaped our world, can we forge new forms of governance that draw on our common heritage. The enduring legacy of the Chinese examination system and the meritocratic ideal is a testament to the power of cross-cultural pollination.

For all their differences, East and West are ultimately two halves of a greater whole—yin and yang, not antagonists but complements, the “Tao of Terra.”

The ancient flow of ideas along the Silk Road offers a model for our times—that the silk road is the path to good governance and a two-way street.

Share and Enjoy !

SHARE TWEET SHARE COPY EMAIL PRINT