We apologise for the delay in publishing Mr PN Balji’s piece, as earlier indicated on TOC. It will be published at a later date. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.
Mohd Haireez / Guest Writer
In response to a question on whether Singapore is ready for a minority-race prime minister, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong suggested that while it is not impossible, it is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.
In support of his proposition, Mr Lee revealed at a dialogue session organized by MESRA, that it was dependent on how people voted and suggested that the race of the candidate is an unavoidable influence in the voting pattern.
With all due respect to Mr Lee, his response is at best, unsettling, particularly after decades of struggle to portray the government as a racially-unbiased institution.
Mr Lee pointed out that race is a factor in the appointment of a Prime Minister.
This is especially disturbing considering that the position of Prime Minister is not constitutionally dependent on the votes of the average citizen but is contingent upon the decision of the President who is supposed to select a Member of Parliament “who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament..”, according to Article 25 of our Constitution.
In practice, while the People’s Action Party (PAP) continues to dominate Parliament, the person the party endorses as Prime Minister will be elevated to that position, and confirmed by the President. Hence, Mr Lee’s statement is especially important.
To suggest that race is an unavoidable issue in this appointment is to suggest that race is still a factor in deciding whether a candidate can command the confidence of our elected Parliamentarians. This leads to the inexcusable inference that our very own leaders are still somewhat racially-prejudiced.
I am not insinuating that our leaders should be free from the prejudices that plague the common man but as people whom the average person vests responsibility in, it is imperative that the government, at least the Prime Minister, should represent a figure who transcends racial lines.
I am also not suggesting that Singapore has reached a stage whereby citizens are Singaporeans first, before their own respective races, in all circumstances.
But if we accept that the way forward is embodied in our pledge “regardless of race, language or religion” as our Government has, then surely it has to start with our leaders.
In extension of his response, Mr Lee rationalised that the fact Senator John McCain garnered a majority of white votes in the recent US Presidential elections is a reflection of how race is still a factor in the minds of the American voters.
But this overlooks the fact that not a single Democrat has won a majority of the white vote since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 despite fielding white candidates as Presidential-hopefuls. In fact, Senator John Kerry, a white Democrat nominee, attracted less support from the white voters in 2004 than President-elect Obama did in the recent US Presidential election. Senator Kerry garnered just 43 percent of the white vote while still attracting the majority of the non-white voters despite being white himself.
These statistics make it at least clear that race, while etched in the minds of some, is only one of several concerns for the majority of the Americans.
The American people have shown that they are willing to start judging a candidate by his abilities, and not his race.
Similarly, a suitable Prime Minister must be assessed by his ability, regardless of his race.
Even if this remains an ideal, there is no reason why our leaders, especially Mr Lee, cannot endorse this ideal especially when it comes to selecting the Prime Minister of our multi-racial country.
———-
About the author:
Mohd Haireez is currently a year 3 undergraduate at the NUS Faculty of Law. He believes that community-involvement is the most effective means of familiarising oneself with grassroot issues. Besides being a regular at Downtown east and Arab Street, the former Vice-President of the NUS Malay Language Society is himself an avid volunteer. He is currently the Chairman of the Youth Committee in Al-Istighfar Mosque and is working with NGOs like YAMP on several projects.
———-
#47 Hopeless
Dear Hopeless,
The way i read it is: Tharman’s first statement is the official statement of the Government’s status quo. behind the scene, Tharman has been pushing for the approval of an insurance for back deposits.
Please follow this 2nd reading ot the Deposit Insurance Bill 2005. Tharman pushed for this bill at the time when he was only the Minister of Education. His position as Deputy Chairman of MAS would not count in a parliamentary debate. He has served as a Director in MAS since early 90s. http://www.mas.gov.sg/news_room/statements/2005/Second_Reading_by_Mr_Tharman_for_DI_Bill_2005.html This reading was in April 2007, way ahead of the DBS Saga.
His seemingly abrupt about turn only serves as an indication that he is continuously committed to ensure that Bank Deposits are protected.
#51
“approval of an insurance for back deposits” — up to S$20,000 only lol.
My dog’s trust account has more than that.
Anyway me and my dog not complaining now.
Honk for the Hongkies — S’pore followed HK’s blanket guarantee.
Just like if HK Parly decides to investigate banks for misselling and misrep toxic products, S’pore will follow.
Hongkies lead the way.
No need govt of talents — juz follow Hongkies.
Lemming mentality or monkey see, monkey do?
Mr Lifeobzervr,
Really very very cheeeem. As complicated as mini-bond thing. Difficult to understand. I am not sure if a PhD guy would understand.
for post #51, My point is this: for someone in cabinet who is not even the Minister of Finance at that time (apr 2007), poking his nose and pushing for changes to the longstanding hands off policy of the govt with regards to the bank deposit (althought only a token of $20000) is in itself a moral courage which is symbolic. This is something that should be the concern of the Finance Minister then…
“Lemming mentality or monkey see, monkey do?”
Like it or not. It works. Why else do we need marketing and spinning. If you know what I mean. The reason for you to be around also. Right ?
Hmm, A better PM would have been JBJ no doubt bout that, cause he doesnt fear the God-King. If the pm says as such, it is the responsibility and the maturity of the majority of the singaporeans to make the vote. This is because the minorities will not affect the voting as much. As stated before, the minorities bear only 30% of the country. If all should vote for the minority candidate, he will still not have a chance in winning. This is the moment at which the majority will be tested whether they are actually judging people by merit or they are still stereotypical or perhaps hypocritical.
#56
But according to Cabinet website, he was Second Minister for Finance from Dec 2006. So in April 2007 he was Second Minister for Finance.
So what “moral courage” you talking abt? His duty (if MoF is busy etc) to push for bill.
Or is Cabinet website wrong?
I think we need to do an in-depth analysis on the subject of fear.
Why do people feay LKY?
Why do people fear PAP?
Why do peple fear ISA?
Why do people fear the Judiciary?
Why do people fear the Police?
Why do people fear to vote for the opposition?
Now our PM is insinuating if we ought to fear a minority PM.
See the pattern? How did we come to possess so much fear?
Fear has been introduced to us from time to time and we have been brainwashed to accept these fears and to associate them with being Singaporean.
Get the picture? The people mentioned above should be the ones fearing the people. How come nobody fears the people?
Something is wrong, very wrong.
Well under the Singapore Constitution, the Prime Minister is appointed by the President. Therefore whether we have a minority race Prime Minister totally depends on the President. This is not a decision by general public.
So no point argue about this when we have not the slightest influence.
I guess we can talk about the appointment of President as we have revised the constitution in 1991 to become a people elected President instead of Parliament elected President.
Don’t understand why people kept saying PAP won 66.6% of votes. I thought only about 55% of the constituents got to vote, so 66.6% out of 55% is approximately equivalent to 36.6%. On what basis is the majority of the remaining 45% of votes from constituents who did not get to vote counted as voting for PAP?
60) gemami on November 10th, 2008 11.43 am
Do not need in-depth analysis lah.
When the surrounding messages (thanks to the hard work of the MSM) and reward-and-compensation system for agreeing and disagreeing are perpetuated to stress this fear factor, a lot of people will naturally learn by examples. It is even worst if the the process begins when you are very young.
Once it is sufficiently built into your own psyche over a period of time, your biology will naturally take over. It will take a very determined person to undo this conditioning because you are actually fighting with yourself (your own hard-wired learned experience) and with external factors still perpetuating / reinforcing that it is “wrong” for you to fight back.
The wonder of the internet if that you can learn all of this at your own pace without people saying that you are spewing nonsence. That is why it is more and more difficult for them to stress about their own talent and intelligence anymore because it is becoming more and more like a piece of commodity.
They themselves have practised it also like ‘importing’ talent but they have somehow ‘forgotten’ about their own positions.
police + judiciary + PAP mps fear the emperor.
opp politicians fear the emperor.
Lee Jr and Goh fear the emperor.
ISD serve as eyes and ears to the emperor.
gurkhas serve as imperial guards to the emperor.
the emperor is human like us and he has much fear.
has anyone seen him in public without his guards ?
the best person to be PM cannot be serving the emperor and his system.
Appointment of Prime Minister and Ministers 25. —(1)
The President shall appoint as Prime Minister a Member of Parliament who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament, and shall, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint other Ministers from among the Members of Parliament
So, who is not ready for a minority PM? Who is the current PM addressing his ‘advice’ to? The people or the President who appointed him?
#59 A Tan,
Thanks for pointing out on the date. Correction on the date: the Second reading was made on 15 August 2005. (the website shows updated in apr 2007, which I suppose the date the page went online).
In Aug 2005, Mr Tharman hasn’t been handed the MoF portfolio. My other comments as is.
Good time to start expanding and looking beyond old boys’ network and blood relations. Meritocracy should transcend the racial factor.
Vivian Balakrishnan’s mixed ancestry is like of like an Obama’s story. But he made a few insensitive remarks by toeing the government’s line. Cost him fair amount of popular support.
Mr Lifeobzervr,
So, u made a slip lah. U tried to say that Tharman was a good man before he weas MoF. …
Most would be a good men before he assumes the position of power. Now, have you seen the true colour…..
U still think he qualified?
Tharman as PM? Did you guys know he was convicted under the Official Secrets Act?
While serving as economics director in Monetary Authority of Singapore in 1994, Tharman was charged under the Official Secrets Act for inadvertently releasing Singapore’s 1992 second-quarter flash projections to a research director Mr Raymond Foo, and economist Manu Bhaskaran, of Crosby Securities and journalists, Kenneth James and Patrick Daniel from the Business Times.
Tharmam was convicted by Senior District Judge Richard Magnus and fined SGD$1,500
u mean its ok to hire a man found guilty of offence to work in such a position?
oh, ok, thanks for the info.
we in safe hands no wolly.
I don’t think the minority has the chance to become PM for the next 50 years if the current garhem still in power. I bet the lee dynasty will continue with that position for the next 1 or 2 generations if PAP still in power. The old-fart already said that minority has to wait long, long before it happen.
Our racial riots happened in 1964. We had not 1 but 2 racial riots. I was too young then but I will safely say, so are most of the readers and contributors to TOC.
But imagine you are the exiting PM, would you think it is wise to have a non-chinese PM in the cabinet, assuming he is capable as well? As the PM you should be thinking of party interests as well as the people. Are Singaporeans ready, given the knowledge and data that only 44 years ago, there were such riots?
I have my answer. I wonder what is yours?
I am shocked by PM Lee’s comments. Imagine Bush says, it is possible to have a black president, but America is not ready for it. He would have to apologize and retract his statement! But in Singapore, our leaders are allowed these comments because they are Team “A”.
If we keep talking about Chinese, Malays, Indians and Others, we will remain Chinese, Malays, Indians and Others and never be able to see beyond that. What happened to meritocracy? PAP has been preaching it for years! And this article rightly points out: the PM is not directly elected. So the rest of Singapore may not be ready to have a minority PM, what about members of the ruling party who are supposedly made up of Team “A”? Would they allow a B grade leader, even if he or she is Chinese?
So much for telling us what we think! PM cannot tell us what he thinks. He cannot assume we are not ready, unless we are allow to voice our opinion!
It is time Singaporeans stop allowing our leaders to tell us what we think!
To be frank, I support PM LEE point of view. S’pore cannot be compare to America..nor any other countries in the world.
America had a history of over 200 years.A history where Black are taken as slaves and Whites are of the supreme race..their cause is made similar as the ‘HEBREWS’ during pharoah dynasty bank in the ancient egyptian dynasty..
It’s possible actually, but it will take maybe some time few generations down the road to have a minority PM in s’pore. Singaporeans either from the minority or the majority are not comfotable ‘enough’ with the idea…
“To be frank, I support PM LEE point of view. S’pore cannot be compare to America..nor any other countries in the world.”
So why are people comfortable with Nathan as president then ?
The problem is not with Singaporeans. The problem is PAP and PAP alone.
We must not allow the PM to push the blame to us.
If Singaporeans can accept the transfer of power from father to son, what difference would it make if we have a minority race PM? We have already faced the worst, what can be worse than nepotism?
So why are people comfortable with Nathan as president then? – Daniel (#74)
Do you think Singaporeans are comfortable or resigned to the fact that SR Nathan is President. For goodness sake, he wasn’t elected by the people. There was no election. He was effectively appointed by the Public Service Commission (PSC) because he was the only qualified candidate in the eyes of the PSC.
“America had a history of over 200 years.A history where Black are taken as slaves and Whites are of the supreme race”
Although that is true, let us not forget that the minority races here were never treated the way the Blacks in Americas was. Furthermore, until large numbers of Chinese immigrants came, Malays were the majority.
“If Singaporeans can accept the transfer of power from father to son, what difference would it make if we have a minority race PM? We have already faced the worst, what can be worse than nepotism?”
Absolutely! I think we need to also reflect on what we have “accepted”. PAP shoves all these things in our face and yes, some of us complain, but at the end, our lives still go on.
“Singaporeans either from the minority or the majority are not comfotable ‘enough’ with the idea…”
if somebody keeps telling you that you won’t be comfortable, you may end up fulfilling that prophecy. We need to be less affected by these statements and judge for ourselves. We have been told too many times what we supposedly feel. We are not ready for gays, not ready for minority race leader BUT when did we say we were ready for, say, a casino? We were told to accept some of these ideas even when many voices objected. We are told that because some religious groups oppose gays, so the society is not ready. But when the issue of casino was rejected by religious groups, the government forced it on to us! At the end of the day, they justify things whichever way they want.
*I am ethnic Chinese and not religious*
Gemami and others are quite right.
The PAP might not be ready for a non-Chinese leader but not Singaporeans.
Singaporeans will vote for the most passionate and the most qualified
The Chinese majority citizens of Anson voted for JBJ TWICE over Chinese Singaporean candidates!!
Well, the way I see it, I see it as the uncertainty of a party rather than of the State.
#67 True Personality
I don’t really see that Tharman has changed his position. The usual thing about policies, it stays on the shelf until it is challenged. My take is that the first statement was just a reading of the existing policy at that time while the second one was a reading of a revised policy.
Somehow, i guess, with Australia and Hong Kong providing that kind of guarantee, it is very easy for the bank customers with very deep pockets to withdraw every cent and transfer the funds to offshore banks that provides blanket guarantee. So, MAS about turn was more likely to be in response to that rather than small depositors.
I personally am not in favour for a blanket guarantee without a cap as it is as good as guaranteeing a bail out before it is even needed.
#68 gemami,
I’d like to forgive an honest mistake but will want to challenge outright abuse of power, both physically or symbolicly. Tharman has been charged for the offence and paid the fine and has his record up for everyone to see. He wasn’t in politics then.
Well, maybe I’m wrong. Tharman may not be the best person in the present cabinet to take over the PM portfolio. However, looking at the present lot of parliamentarians, I don’t see anyone better qualified. As I indicated, I’m not discounting the other option where the whole government is replaced thus a new ruling party and new PM. However, I don’t see any of the present alternative parties having that sensitivity and acumen to form a govenment. My foremost hope is for the alternative parties to gain enough footing to form a shadow government. At least even outside the parliament. Nothing is stopping the major alternative parties here to meet in partnership regularly and debate policy positions rationally.
I have my share of dissapointment of racial insensitivity by one of the major alternative parties in the last election. I’ve given them my feedback and I accept that it was an oversight on their part. No offense taken. My point is that, we need to keep ourselves constantly reminded that it is very easy to fall back to cultural norms of many such that we pay little attention to the discomforts shown by the marginal few. However, if the symbolic discrimination persists despite reminders, then it has moved from habits to arrogance. That, must be challenged outright.
From what I read here, Singaporeans of all Races are ready for a minority race PM who has the capability. BUT NONE WILL ACCEPT ANYONE THAT IS A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT NOR MATTER HIS FAITH.
And it is precisely because of these religious zealots that Singapore is not ready for a minority race PM.
patriot
80) Lifeobzervr
I’d like to forgive an honest mistake
By nature, most of us would also like to forgive someone who has made a mistake. But tell me what constitutes an honest mistake as opposed to a dishonest mistake?
A mistake is a mistake and when the court of law has deemed it a criminal act, it can no longer be deemed an honest mistake. Why go to the court then if the people can judge it to be an honest mistake?
Now, we are talking about occupying the highest office in the land. We are talking about a position that directly impacts the lives and livelihoods of every Singaporean. Can we allow one who has been convicted, whether the crime for the conviction is honest or otherwise, to hold this position?
Another point, so many of our politicians in the opposition camp have been brought to their knees because of honest mistakes which were punished more than the court of law did.
Remember James Gomez? Remember Francis Seow? All very petty and honest mistakes than were punished with the destruction of their lives.
Patriot:
it is precisely because of these religious zealots that Singapore is not ready for a minority race…
You’ve brought up the core area of the problem which many do not even visit. It tells the bare truth doesn’t it?. Under normal circumstances, a minority PM is acceptable to most Singaporeans but there will always be this fear of the PMship going to a minority who may be a religious zealot.
However, we do need to bear in mind too that with a Chines PM, it can also happen, but less likely so, because of our demographic and geographic position.
gemami on November 10th, 2008 7.05 pm The problem is not with Singaporeans. The problem is PAP and PAP alone.
We must not allow the PM to push the blame to us.
If Singaporeans can accept the transfer of power from father to son, what difference would it make if we have a minority race PM? We have already faced the worst, what can be worse than nepotism?
#gemami – this is debaseful. Your memory is short changed. Power is not transfer from father to son. There is GCT as a PM for 13 years. He is no seat warmer. Get your perspectives and history of your country right. To be PM in Singapore, a command and respect of the majority in the ruling pary members is required. I do not know whether this ruling is applied to other political parties in Singapore Or they never have this ruling at all. You mentioned nepotism. Can you defend this statement if you are call or summon to Court to explain?
I was shocked that there is a talk of early election from today’s ST.
Maybe the opportunities will be there sooner than we expect!
Gosh! you’re forcing me to say the things I do not want to say.
Urgh! ….. but here goes….I don’t know about the ‘command of respect’ part. Honestly, it is debatable that Lee Hsien Loong would have commanded the respect of the ruling members if his name was say, TAN Hsien Loong. Would you know?
As for GCT commanding respect? — (scratching my head and rolling my eyes)
GOH Chok Tong being PM for 13 years, have you not seen how he was being bailed out every now and then by MM, MSM and Members in whites? He wanted an ‘open cunsultative’ kind of governance but in truth, how often has he openly consulted with the people as compared to his ‘open’ consultation with those in whites? Did you think he had a free hand to govern the people the way he had wanted to?
So you see, GCT as PM has always been known to Singaporeans as a seat-warming transit phase that paves the way for the Prince of the Kingdom of Singapore to take over control of the Kingdom.
Two reasons why this phase is absolutely necessary.
1. The Emperor cannot be seen to be clinging on to power even as he aged.
2. The Prince has to be given time to learn how to rule the Kingdom.
So, in come, Woody Wood Chok Tong, not too smart, obedient enough to follow the commands of the Emperor, and take the rap for the Prince as he tried his hand at governing from behind the scene, in other word, a puppet made-to-measure.
Tell me I’m being funny. This is not my sentiments and mine only. Unless you’ve just returned from Timbuktu, these are sentiments expressed kingdomwide.
Finally, about proving the case of nepotism in court, hah!, you’re not kidding right? What do you think I expect the judgement to be from a Kangaroo Court?
“So why are people comfortable with Nathan as president then? – Daniel (#74)
Do you think Singaporeans are comfortable or resigned to the fact that SR Nathan is President. For goodness sake, he wasn’t elected by the people. There was no election. He was effectively appointed by the Public Service Commission (PSC) because he was the only qualified candidate in the eyes of the PSC.”
The point I trying to say that it doesn’t matter what race is it that even a president of state having power can have a different race, why shouldn’t PM be allowed different race ? People are okay with Nathan as president, be it fair or unfair, so why the same thing couldn’t apply to PM, so it is obvious that it is the people cannot be ready, it is the Lee can’t afford to lose power.
Absulutely right Daniel.
I have this to add.
Look at our National Day celebrations every year. See the crowd inside the National Stadium waving happily and most excitedly away when the President goes around in his automobil.
Does anyone think that this is staged, year after year?
Let’s not talk about President Nathan and think that Singaporeans started accepting non-Chinese in state positions only recently.
May I ask, who was our first president? What race was he?
Who was our second President? What race was he? Who was our third President? What race was he? Now we have President Nathan. We know he is Indian.
This tells us two things:
1. the people have been seeing beyond the colour of skin for as long as Singapore has been independent. There is no issue whether the people can accept a minority PM.
2. see the pattern in the presidential appointments?
a. Yusof Ishak – Malay
b. Benjamin Sheares – Eurasian
c. Wee Kim Wee – Chinese
d. Nathan – Indian
Now, can you guess who will make the next president? Which race will he come from? Who is playing racial politics?
84) Oscar Choy on November 12th, 2008 5.46 am
“You mentioned nepotism. Can you defend this statement if you are call or summon to Court to explain?”
Court again ? Perception is reality my friend. And why such a perception, no prize for guessing right.
For most people, no one is really schooled in the art of perceiving, if you know what I mean. Ask youself the question before you start to throw people with your “court thingy”.
I hope opinions / perception / views should never have a day to be judged in court, unless it is CRIMINAL IN NATURE.
2. see the pattern in the presidential appointments?
a. Yusof Ishak – Malay
b. Benjamin Sheares – Eurasian
c. Wee Kim Wee – Chinese
d. Nathan – Indian”
It doesn’t take more than 1 nanosecond to find out which is the most useless of all.
gemami,
now I know where the words “cockle nathan” come from. I don’t actually know the original spelling but now I do because it doesn’t matter anymore about the spelling as long as it sounds right ! Now I know why is it so popular used in Army.
What a “cockle nathan” of us to serve NS when we lose job to Foreign Worker.
This comment is specifically directed to Mr Ho Cheow Seng(#33 above)
With all due respect it is Mr Ho who has completely missed, even misinterpreted, the writer Mohd Haireez’s article.
There is no basis for comparison between the political systems of Malaysia and Singapore, despite the fact that both countries are multiracial. The special rights of the bumiputeras (whether justified or not, that is beside the point) are enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution, drawn at the time of independence from the British. One can accuse the Malaysian politicians of a lot of things, but accusing them of not practising what they preach, at least in this aspect, is not one of them.
Singapore on the other hand, is founded on the premise that all citizens should be treated equally “regardless of race, language or religion’; its leaders have time and again prided themselves of this fact and extolled on the virtues of meritocracy. Whatever the sentiment on the ground may be, if there should come a day when the most capable person for the highest office in the land is from a minority race, the political elite must hold on to the meritocratic ideals of the country and set the tone for the rest of the country to emulate.
I also note some resentment in Mr Ho’s reply, as if the point of Mohd Haireez’s article is to ask for more concessions for the Malays. The special priviledge of Malays in terms of a blanket free education have long been abolished. I am not privy to the reasons why it was introduced in the first place. Many Malays still have their fees paid by way of Mendaki (from govt funds of course) if they are of a certain economic band. But CDAC, SINDA and the Eurasians have similar schemes. In any case, the monetary amounts involved pales in comparison to the extra funding that SAP schools receive, and the overwhelming number of government scholarships that go towards Chinese students, academically deserving though these may be.
In the last paragraph of his reply, what exactly are the “truths” that Mr Ho is alluding to? Singaporean Malays are not equal to Malaysian Malays, just as I am sure Mr Ho would agree that Singaporean Chinese are not equal to the mainland Chinese. Every year at National Day rallies no less, the Malays have a very public airing of problems that beset the community, though small successes are also peppered in now and then. Other communities are also over-represented in certain areas, such as gambling, drinking and poor social support and suicides. But I don’t recall these being labeled as distinctly “Chinese” or “Indian”.
I hope Mr Ho would overcome his stereotyping and take the time to read through Mohd Haireez’s article. It is a balanced piece by someone raised on meritocratic ideals who just happen to be Malay. It is not the rant of a disgruntled minority asking for more concessions.
It is wise to have a capable ‘ minority race PM’ to run the country than to have a incompetent ‘majority race PM’ who destroy the the country.
WE THE CITIZENS OF SINGAPORE STAND AS ONE UNITED PEOPLE !