One can always say that we are democratic and believes in prosperity for all irregardless of race or language by reassuring the citizens. But ultimately, things will show whether the party holds its policies to such ideals, rather than see such rhetoric as necessary to maintaining their power. There seem to be selective opportunities being meted out here.

Are we really like Israel? Did we conquer a territory and force the inhabitants out of it? Do Malaysia and Indonesia attack our people?

This comment on a forum could be one of an ignorant minority, but it is a sure sign that some citizens think that they are being threatened by the Other: the less economically successful, the less “progressive”, the less secular nations.

I hope most Singaporeans are aware that “hostile” is hardly an accurate adjective to describe Singapore’s relations with our two largest neighbouring countries. That kind of thinking could spark off anything between a flame and a raging fire.

The whole debate about the ethnicity of the future PM seems to imply that Singaporeans obviously think that their PM physically represents them overseas; should the PM be non-Chinese, could the majority of Singaporeans believe that he would not be holding their priorities as his own?

If that is true, then we’re far from being the harmonious society we are so so proud of. It still seems to be every ethnicity for itself. I still remember a minimart Chinese auntie cursing at a couple of Chinese schoolchildren for talking about voting for Taufik Batisah instead of Sly.

Is that wrong?

Presidential election candidates do not have party support and they are subject to polling by the entire electorate (unlike a GRC situation where ethnic minority candidates supposedly benefit from being in a multi-racial team).

There must have been several hundreds of ethnic Chinese Singaporeans, from both the public and private sectors, who will fulfil the stringent requirements prescribed for the office of presidency, but none did. Not a single eligible ethnic Chinese Singapore citizen stood for the office.

So at the end of the (polling) day, it all depends on who is willing enough, committed enough, confident enough, popular enough and capable enough to stand up and carry the responsibility and leadership. Even more so for a Prime Minister. If that person happens to be a non-Chinese, or a woman, or was born in a foreign land, so be it. While none will disagree that we want only the best to assume that position, in reality it will only go to the best among the willing.

Westminster parliamentary democracy means the leader of the winning political party usually becomes the PM by means of popular vote within his own party.

The public only has a say in the party being sent to Parliament, but no legal option to directly vote on the Prime Minister.

UnfortunateSingaporean – I really don’t think that if you have a minority candidate of THarman’s calibre, the Chinese electorate is going to vote against the party just because he is Indian. Let’s have a bit more faith in Singaporeans. But I do agree that primordial tendencies tend to be more powerful than we care to admit.

The PM is chosen by the winning party, period. It is entirely up to that party to choose and they don’t need to explain the internal rationale to anybody at all.

I thought this is might clearly understood ? Sorry if I am the one missing the point !

What I cannot accept is that the decision as to who should be the next PM is left entirely to the decision of one person and/or a small group of people.

This is when absolute power can corrupt. There is no way that we can effectively check on the excesses or abuses of this particular person and/or small group of people.

I am personally ready for a non-Chinese PM – as long as the incumbent has the aptitude and charisma to lead, and most importantly – integrity.

I think a more pertinent question to ask is whether we are ready for a female PM!

Well I guess, Democrats in USA are facing this problem – race or gender – Obama or Clinton. My gut feel is the USA, the forerunner and amplifier of equal rights and whatever shit, are still not very ready for either – if given a choice. It doesn’t help that the Republican candidates are mediocre.

It always puzzles me how the PAP decides what we are ready for and what we are not. Nonetheless, you are only partially right. The PAP itself is not ready for a minority PM, but you forget to ask why they are not ready.

Ultimately they fear the possible repercussions of that decision. Most obviously at the polls where the majority are of course the Chinese (due to THEIR policy of racial quotas i must add). We all claim to be enlightened and colourblind, but the majority of us still subconsciously make decisions and judgments along racial lines. To claim otherwise would be naive.

We all know that cultural heritage and skin pigment do not matter, but the heart and subsequent actions may prove otherwise.

This very debate is an indication that we are all too aware of the fact that Tharman is an Indian. Would we have this same debate over Teo Chee Hen?

So indeed they fear the majority is not ready and hence they lack the political will to test that hypothesis.

(At least that’s what those snooty ones love to think. Talent is not everything.. lest they forget)

I am English-educated, Peranakan Chinese, perhaps some might want to push me into that elitist camp. No matter. I would rather see this myopia as a generation issue, rather than anything else. Most of my peers are highly liberal in our political leanings, and even if we would have to grudgingly realise that the PAP is quite likely to form the next government, I can safely say that most of the people I know, rather Singapore have a non-Chinese PM.

Why? We need someone who is able to articulate the notion that Singapore is a nation that is race-blind, even though it might be a symbolic gesture.

We need a PM who does not by nature of existence, perpetuate a myth that Singapore is a Chinese nation, which certain elements might favor, unfortunately.

Marc’s right. The second example is an exercise in daftness and a clear sense of ignorance when it comes to politics and national interest. Why should China have any influence, direct or indirect, in the way we choose our leaders? Since when did we lose our backbone and decide to become a tributary state of the PRC?

Don’t forget we’re the front-runner in ASEAN regionalism. Party politics in our domestic sphere aside ,this role is a neccesary role that we have to play. True meritocracy has to be seen to be done, not just spoken like campaign promises.