An excellent response to #53.

I agree with you totally, gemami. Kudos to you.

CONSEQUENCE: Is the Prime Minister suggesting that two miracles had happened in those two consecutive elections? Has the country suffered as a result of that choice? Did we pay a great social cost having a person of a racial minority elected to the most highly-paid public office in our system? Did a field survey – that the Prime Minister has done and yet to share with us – showed that our racial-minority President has not been popularly accepted? What makes him say such things?

Does Singapore not deserve the best leaders available, regardless of gender, race and religion? Isn’t that the main reason we are paying the highest salary packages in the world per capita to our Ministers? To get only the best and not just the next best? Can some skin colours possibly be less “best” in the Prime Minister’s eyes? We are not seeing the logic here, but some true colours seems to be showing.

HISTORY: Ready or not ready, Singapore had accepted the President’s dedicated service to watch over the country’s reserve and perform distinguished ceremonial duties for more than 10 years. We haven’t seen violent objections. “Not any time soon” has been happening sooner than you think or remember.

One can never be ready for history. But some will continue to live in denial of history.

This country really has a warped and twisted sense of history and time…progress in this country happens in the most bizarre and topsy-turvy sequence – we can be so blind to what has already happened, and then when it is almost gone and happily over, realise we were never ready for it in the first place!!!

Dear Justanopinion,

You might not be an expert on politics but you sure are a very careful fellow. There seems to be a deception in your gentleness (forgive me if I sound offensive but, you know, it’s better to be truthful than to live a lie, right?).

I’m not sure if you have the correct take when you summarize the discussion as having two consistent issues, namely bi-partisanship and a 2 party system.
Looks like you prefer to set the theme for what you were about to share instead.

Never mind this, since we will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not an expert on politics. I shall also speak at the same level. This is not to say I am an expert either. Far from it, for there are still a lot to learn each day.

You said:

Running the country is not a simple job. It requires selfless sacrifice. Our leaders have to work even during their weekends, gracing this occasion or chairing that occasion. They have to consistently be thinking for us.

Do they know that living in Singapore is not an easy task then? It requires a lot of selfless sacrifice, sometimes not by choice but by order. Most of us have to work on weekends and our family members may also work nights and weekend nights. Do they know? or do they think it is something necessary and that it is a citizen’s duty to do so? Is it more tiring to grace occasions or attend invites or to run everywhere looking to place food on your table?

You said: MM once asked people to consider why he is still there. I mean, why not retire now, and retire say in Switzerland? Its not like he needs the very controversial salaries from the government. Yet here he is, even in his golden years, sweating for our country, for us. .

Believe you me, this is his way of convincing the people but go deeper into it and ask if this is true. Do you not think the relationship between a father and a son is a more important factor to stay in the neighbourhood, so to speak? He feels he is still able to come to his son’s rescue should he need him. Stay close by. I have no doubt that money does not interest him. So, the only reason is the son. Is he sweating for the country or for the son then? You answer this.

You said: The PAP has a tried and tested system. Our leaders care for us. There is no other reason why, they rather be here.

I shall not delve too deep into this. The answers and comments in this forum is too plain to see, hear and read. Take your time.

You said: . I mean as MM pointed out, these men and women can earn much more in the private sector given their capability.

MM sure has written his own bible doesn’t he? He can point out all he wants but truth be told, how much was LHL earning when he was in the SAF. How much would he have earned should he had left the SAF to look for a job in the private sector? Now before you answer this question, I want you to do one thing. Let’s imagine his name is not LEE Hsien Loong but Tan How Lian. Now you answer.

You said: In Singapore, which is a very small country, does it not make sense to say that there is only space in one party for the best and the brightest?It makes sense for our best to work together in one framework as opposed to working against each other in opposing parties. And which framework, better than the one that has single handedly brought us here, where everyone can dream and work hard and make it rich.

Space or the lack of it is no reason why there cannot be an Alternative Party or in having a multi-party system of governance. Yes, two heads are better than one but also too many cooks spoil the soup.

So the answer to your question is, no, we cannot have the brightest in one team if the team is beholden to one manipulator. It defeats the purpose of having the brightest in one pool.

Also, intelligence is a very subjective matter altogether.
I shall not elaborate too much because of space but it suffice to say that a social worker is brighter and more intelligent than a politician with issues that deals with people’s social habits. So you see, what do you mean by ‘brightest’?

And, oh yes, I almost missed it. Is it true that EVERYONE can dream of being rich with hard work? You believe? I suggest you go outside your home or office, go find the old lady or old man picking cardboards who had helped to build Singapore brick by brick and tell them exactly what you have written here, then you come back and tell us what happened. Can I entrust you to do this?

I do not disagree that the PAP govt is race-blind. See, we have something we can agree on.

Thank you for sharing.

Cheers ;)

I would first like to say, that what I am about to say is totally my opinion and that I am not an expert in politics and I do not have any credentials to back up my opinions. With that said, let me say my two cents worth, on this very interesting conversation.

Throughout, this discussion, 2 issues amongst others have come up consistently. The issue of bipartisanship, if indeed that means having a 2 party system. The other issue is of us in Singapore having a PM from a minority race.

Of course the reference point is the recent election of Obama, in the US.

Firstly, I would like to ask, even if we have a PM from a minority race, why must he or she essentially belong to a opposition party?

Secondly, there seems to be the assumption that we have candidates, who are as talented and driven and self sacrificial as Obama, from a minority race.

The PAP, has been consistently stating in the ST that it is always on the lookout for the brightest and most suitable individuals who have a passion for Singapore, to absorb into its ranks.

Running the country is not a simple job. It requires selfless sacrifice. Our leaders have to work even during their weekends, gracing this occasion or chairing that occasion. They have to consistently be thinking for us. MM once asked people to consider why he is still there. I mean, why not retire now, and retire say in Switzerland? Its not like he needs the very controversial salaries from the government. Yet here he is, even in his golden years, sweating for our country, for us.

The PAP has a tried and tested system. Our leaders care for us. There is no other reason why, they rather be here. I mean as MM pointed out, these men and women can earn much more in the private sector given their capability. With that said, even if Singaporeans want some policy changed, why cant we work within the existing framework of government? The democrats have always been there and so perhaps the people could take a chance with them. In Singapore, which is a very small country, does it not make sense to say that there is only space in one party for the best and the brightest?It makes sense for our best to work together in one framework as opposed to working against each other in opposing parties. And which framework, better than the one that has single handedly brought us here, where everyone can dream and work hard and make it rich. The PAP emphasizes meritocracy, and we do see generals and colonels in the SAF, who are of the minority race. The PAP is race blind, as the PM has said. It is then, the people who have to decide for themselves. If indeed there is someone as talented, as Obama, in the minority race, the PAP would surely have approached him or her by now. And I am sure, that, in the interest of Singapore, the PAP, would be agreeable to have a PM from a minority race. It is easier to work within the tried and tested framework for this certain individual, don’t you think?

So the questions to ask are,
1. If the electorate is race blind? ( for the government is)
2. Is there really someone from a minority race who can be compared to Obama?
3. Why do we need a 2 party system for such a small country, would it not be counter productive?

Thank you. Im not an expert, and I am just thinking aloud.

Justanopinion

Why is it that in the US, they are saying “Yes we can!” but in Singapore we are saying “But we cannot….yet.”

The basis of using TOC as a reference is no different to the ST for supporting such a conflicting belief that the people are not ready for a minority PM. Under what basis does ST or LHL make such an assumption. Were there any survey conducted to support this or is it because he is LHL that no one dares to question him on what basis he made that statement, that assumption?

Now, now, it is precisely that the mindsets of the people are so diverse (something you call flawed), that such statements becomes a generalisation of something that has not yet proven to be a fact. Now, who is to be blamed. Mind you, it’s not Tan Ah Kow making such a statement. It’s the Prime Minister of Singapore.

As for you claim that I may be trying to paint the PAP as God, well, I do not need to do this. The PAP has painted its own picture by always proclaiming to possess the qualities that are very much like taht of God – Infallable.

One thing I do agree with you, and I now chastise myself in case you accuse me of allowing my emotions to take control of my writing, is yes, I apologise for the uncalled for ending to my last post.

Thanks indeed.

I think we’ve to understand the inherent limitations to that statement. You said people here in TOC- they’re open to the prospects of a non-Chinese Prime Minister. Yes, but so what? How far does that go in it’s relevance to the actual Singapore population? The silent majority has not spoken and you made such a baseless generalization. Even then, there are no actual surveys/polls done here in TOC to justify your statement.

You said: Nevertheless, it’s neither the Government nor the citizenry at fault- it’s the culture, the environment in which we’re brought up in. It’s not easy putting people of different races, creed, religion and colour all in one place. Initially, there’ll be resistances, conflicts (which we witnessed during our early years as a nation) and slowly but surely, we matured as a people. We tolerated, understood and eventually accepted others who’re not of the same skin colour, who speaks different languages, who follows different customs and traditions, collectively in a peaceful and harmonious context.
You identified the “culture” as the one at fault and then you go along to describe the composition of the different races and how they are able to grow to maturity. How then, with such community bonding and such an understanding of each other, can it result in a mindset or culture problem?
If it is a mindset or culture problem, then the PAP has failed and failed very badly. We can judge this by the our national pledge to build a democratic society … regardless of race, language or religion
You said: we’ve got a long road ahead of us to fulfill our dream of ideal integration where the emergence of a non-Chinese PM would be a non-issue.
Do we really need for an ideal integration before we can decide to accept a minority PM? The people have already spoken here that they do not mind a minority PM. Is our integration ideal already?

The PAP shouldn’t be chastised and criticized just because apparent flaws in our mindsets exist. It’s like you’re trying to paint the PAP like the Almighty, the Lord- responsible for any hiccups in our behavior and mindset which you deem incorrect. I’ll give you a more appropriate analogy. Do you blame the parents of misled youth who’re involved in crimes and other social ills? Surely, other factors like the environment, influence and culture plays a part in shaping the ultimate and eventual mindset and behavior of the individual.
We’re living in peace and harmony. There’re no outright conflicts happening between the different races. Why? Because the non-discriminatory, multi-racial and multi-religious policies and framework of the PAP has worked. Nevertheless, as I’d said earlier, flaws still exist and it is hoped that there is collective resolve and will to overcome them as we move into the future.

Huh? your point is…….?
The crux of the matter (and why we cannot accept a minority PM) is because we have progressed tremendously? Hmmm….. I want to know more.
You said: The PAP is a political party- it has to be able to accept and execute the peoples’ interests, whatever they may be. For the moment it goes against the peoples’ interests, it’d be voted out of power by the people.
You’re damn right. And with people like you listening in and getting it all wrong and mixed up, no wonder the PAP is in deep shit.
I don’t think I am “listening in” and “getting it all wrong”. I can also claim you to be a Chee Soon Juan sympathizer. Let’s not resort to cheap and callous potshots here and instead, debate issue VS issue like real gentlemen.
Thank you.

You said: People are still unfamiliar with the prospect of having a non-Chinese Prime Minister.

No doubt this is unfamiliar ground but does it qualify as a judgement on the perception or the mindset of the people? Judging from the response here in TOC, it misses by a mile and a half. People are ready for whoever the PM is regardless of race as long as the PM does the job of looking after its citizens.

You said: Nevertheless, it’s neither the Government nor the citizenry at fault- it’s the culture, the environment in which we’re brought up in. It’s not easy putting people of different races, creed, religion and colour all in one place. Initially, there’ll be resistances, conflicts (which we witnessed during our early years as a nation) and slowly but surely, we matured as a people. We tolerated, understood and eventually accepted others who’re not of the same skin colour, who speaks different languages, who follows different customs and traditions, collectively in a peaceful and harmonious context.

You identified the “culture” as the one at fault and then you go along to describe the composition of the different races and how they are able to grow to maturity. How then, with such community bonding and such an understanding of each other, can it result in a mindset or culture problem?

If it is a mindset or culture problem, then the PAP has failed and failed very badly. We can judge this by the our national pledge to build a democratic society … regardless of race, language or religion ….

You said: we’ve got a long road ahead of us to fulfill our dream of ideal integration where the emergence of a non-Chinese PM would be a non-issue.

Do we really need for an ideal integration before we can decide to accept a minority PM? The people have already spoken here that they do not mind a minority PM. Is our integration ideal already?

You said: The crux of the matter, though, is that we’ve progressed tremendously over the years…

Huh? your point is…….?
The crux of the matter (and why we cannot accept a minority PM) is because we have progressed tremendously? Hmmm….. I want to know more.

You said: The PAP is a political party- it has to be able to accept and execute the peoples’ interests, whatever they may be. For the moment it goes against the peoples’ interests, it’d be voted out of power by the people.

You’re damn right. And with people like you listening in and getting it all wrong and mixed up, no wonder the PAP is in deep shit.

So the question is, whether the cabinet is ready for a non-chinese PM?

Singapura has been a 4 race country for long time. Yet, there has never been a Malay PM. Our anthem is in Bahasa Malayu. Our country history is tied Malaysia.
Our earliest leaders included Sultans. The malays have progressed very well. I would support a Malay PM if a capable Malay candidate stand for election.
There should never be any discrimination.

However, let’s not get too carried away with this. Mr Obama may be a “darker” shade of pink and have a name most Americans associate with the “Enemy,” but he is by no means a typical “Black” man born and bread in the slums of New York. The man is exceedingly well educated and comes from top schools. His organisation of his campaign and his use of new media was masterful as much as both his opponents (Hillary and McCain) was awful. Yes, he happens to be a bit more tanned than allot of Americans but he’s exceedingly smart and has the will to outsmart the rest of the field.

So, how does this apply to Singapore and the question of whether we’ll have a “non-Chinese” PM. Well, sad to say, I’m inclined to agree with the PM – there’s no reason why we can’t have one but it will take time.

Let’s face it, America, the “Land of the Brave and Free” has taken 200 years to elect a “Black” man and one they’ve elected is far removed from the life of the ‘average’ black man. In short, Mr Obama is the “Acceptable” face of “Black” America to the “White” majority.

So, let’s see if this works in Singapore, a country which is at its heart multi-ethnic and multi-cultural out of pragmatism than ideology? Well, there is a similarity in this analogy – most ‘liberal’ minded Chinese educated in the Singapore system and gone through the National Service Machine, will have no problem accepting the leadership of a “Non-Chinese” provided we’re talking about an “Acceptable NON Chinese.” What do I mean by that? Well, we’d be looking at someone who went to the right schools, right JC, served in the right army unit, went to the right university and works in a respectable profession. For the majority of “Middle Class” Singaporeans, race of a PM is less of an issue than class. “Educated” Singaporeans are likely to be more comfortable with Guna the RJC Boy running for PM than Tan Ah Siow from Ah Beng Secondary.

But what of the heartlanders? It will probably take a bit more time for a non-Chinese to win them over. Just listen in on some conversations about “typical Mama’s” in the heartlands and you’ll be shocked by how far 43-years of Nation Building has failed to penetrate mindsets. However, people are accepting their daughters marrying outside their race and so why can’t the mindset towards a non-Chinese PM Change. Then again, the “Non-Chinese” would have to “Acceptable” to the majority Chinese population – ie be educated, successful, professional and in addition have a greater interest in Chinese culture than they’re own – Indians who speak dialect are ‘acceptable.’

For me, I don’t really care if the PM is black, white, yellow or purple. What I do care about is whether he or she is right for the job, and in this instance, I think we need to define right or wrong by something other than academic qualifications. It would be nice if someone without a family name, party connections and more importantly lacking in paper qualifications actually running the show.

I am equally perplexed by Balaji’s comments above and by some of his week;y editorials but I laud his contributions through the years to the Today paper which I consider more palatable than the Straits Times. I hope Balaji sets up a blog like Cherian George.

I am on the belief that President elect Obama won the ticket not on race but on a host of other issues which have been dissected successful by the commentators above. Balaji does make a valid point that Singapore’s one-party politics, successful stability and socially engineered demographics will not make it possible for an ethnic minority to hold office at the highest levels.More so, someone from a different party. I would like to see that in my lifetime at least and not from afar.

I was hoping that Obama’s candidacy would spark a rethink among the local electorate that there is nothing wrong in voting in someone from a different party.I am not talking about Race here. A possible uplift effect here in Singapore for the current alternative parties to approach a similar campaign to that of the Democrats is plausible .That a small ‘Hope’ and small ‘Change’ is attainable.

And what do I mean by small ‘Hope’ and small ‘Change’? 5 seats in the next elections.Sounds minuscule, 6% of seats to represent the odd 30% but its a good start.It might prove to be a ‘tipping point’.Like I mentioned in an earlier post that Hong Lim Park would need to see a gathering of 10,000 on a regular basis to see this small ‘Change’ and small ‘Hope’.This will ultimately remove the fear.I hope that it is for a gathering of not personal or financial nature. Maybe a gathering on the re-drawing of electoral boundaries.

But unfortunately, as I expected, Race has been brought up like the Bogey Man to derail any possibility of small ‘Change’ and small ‘Hope’ in the next elections.I did a survey with my friends and colleagues who voted in the US presidential elections. And I got skewed responses, probably these guys were doing a Bradley effect on me. Got me thinking that maybe the surveys by the Institute of Policy Studies and the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies will probably solicit the Bradley effect in the polls.

I am disappointed that the Prime Minister has side stepped on the actual issues and implications about the US Presidential Elections.The message was supposed to be about Hope and Change which might further democratize Singapore. Instead he harps about a non-related non-issue about Race.This will further erode relationships between races and will play into the People’s Action Party’s strategy to win at the next elections through Dividing and Conquering.

I agree with the commentary above that it is the PAP that ultimately decides who the PM should be.Not the electorate.The PAP has the opportunity to practice meritocracy which it champions vociferously. It’s failure in doing so speaks volumes and shows distrust by its’ leadership of the minorities.The PM’s commentary also indirectly advocates that the majority have a similar distrust of the minorities which is blatantly not true. The majority have to castigate him for his views.

What we need now is more voices in Parliament. He can be a Singaporean Eskimo for all that matters. We just have to make sure that he is heard and he is supported.Could more Eskimo’s step forward. It’s a numbers game and we can’t afford to be non-partisan and bystanders forever.

Warmest Regards.

新美两国的多元种族政策有不同，我们不同化各族，美国则以同化为主流。例如奥巴马，他除了肤色外，在语言、文化及宗教上是完全与白人一样的。他若当选美国总统，将显示美国同化多元种族政策的巨大成就。
而我国若有一天选岀马来或印度同胞为总理，他或她在语言、文化及宗教上是不必被同化的（当然英语将作为各族之间的共通语），这将是我国多元种族政策期待的成就。

Probably, the discussions in this forum would turn: Are we ready for a Woman PM?

John Lennon once sung, Woman is the Nigger of the World, highlighting the position of blanket discrimination of women around the world, a level of discrimination the negro race used to receive.

Perhaps, it is necessary to broaden the discussion beyond ethnicity to include the marginalised talents in our society altogether.

Most importantly, we wouldn’t want tokenism to preceed all considerations. However, should:-

A capable candidate who is a Malay/ an Indian/ an Eurasian/ A Muslim/ a Catholic/ A Protestant/ A Buddhist/ A Jew/ A Woman/ An Primary School Drop out/ An Ex Offender/ An Ex PAP supporter/ An Ex Opposition candidate… etc.

come from amongst the ranks and are able to gain the confidence of the citizens, we wouldn’t want to discount them by putting in place unnecessary moralist criteria of a ‘perfect track record’. The PM is not the government. He leads the cabinet no doubt, and his Ministers leads the ministries.

If the staff in the ministries/ stat boards/ CDCs/ town councils are hopelessly afraid to report the truth in their updates to their bosses so as to paint a rosy picture all the time, and their Bosses (the ministers) work on the same mould and report only the good things to the PM, there is just no way that the PM, no matter how credible he/she is as an individual can get to do a good job.

My take is that LHL’s comments is not about race preference/acceptance alone. It has got to do with preserving the elitism that was created by the Education system. Look at last year’s PSLE top scorer Natasha Nabila. She has the grades to walk into any SAP school but is there one at present that can accomodate her? Why wasn’t the race factor raised then?

SAP schools, was the start of a preferential education system largely to serve the society’s elites (read people with deep pockets). Now there are the through train, NUS High School for Maths and Science etc. etc. which are largely very competetive to get in and would require extensive educational support resources to ensure the student get a place and keep up. There are the odd few from the lower rungs of society that creeps through, but how many and where do they go after that?

Now, what if the criteria for a perfect academic record is dropped? Late bloomers who have not set foot in premier local high schools but managed to travel the rocky path up to earn their Ph.Ds in top notch Universities worldwide would have a good claim to lead. What do you do then with the thousands of elite school graduates who are purportedly groomed to be leaders in society?

I don’t think we can forget how Chiam See Tong was humiliated for his ‘O’ levels results. He is Chinese. He has earned his professional qualifications. But he is deemed lousy to be a people’s rep as his ‘O’ level grades were just above average,

How chinese are we, how malay are we and how indian are we.

Indeed it’s more than 70% chinese, but out of this ratio is the level of “chineseness” uniform in that? and presumably a chinese and indian who don’t speak their mother tongue, how different are they?

and it’s worth noting too that the term ‘meritocracy’ was first meant to be pejorative.

What can he/she possibly do but to be a seat warmer and to espouse the ideals of the ruling party? Would a PM from the minority races make a difference to our lot in life?