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 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.

“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.

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?

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.

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?

Maybe the opportunities will be there sooner than we expect!

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?

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.

And it is precisely because of these religious zealots that Singapore is not ready for a minority race PM.

patriot

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.

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!!

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*

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.

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 ?