Frankly, the American President-elect Obama isn't a seat warmer for anyone else. Similarly if there is a Malay or Indian PM in the future, it should be for real, and the guy must have some significant power.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Malay wants to be Prime Minister of Singapore
- Thread starter myo539
- Start date
Frankly, the American President-elect Obama isn't a seat warmer for anyone else. Similarly if there is a Malay or Indian PM in the future, it should be for real, and the guy must have some significant power.
Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said it's possible for the country to have a minority race Prime Minister
"Can we one day have a non-Chinese, a Malay-Muslim Prime Minister? It's possible....34-year-old Member of Parliament Zaqy Mohamad was more optimistic..."I agree with PM that a candidate for prime minister has to be based on ability and acceptance by the majority of Singaporeans. I think today with the younger generation who've gone through post-independence Singapore, I think they are a lot more accepting and race-blind.... if someone comes forth with the right ability and proven track record, it could be a reality."
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/388559/1/.html
Can a Chinese be the Yang Dipertuan Agong of Singapore and Malaysia? And why not?
it's the double standards of so called racial issues in matland and sinkee. chinese are only held accountable for racist issues, fucking mats can be racist and then let off.
it is racist if a mat is not made pm, but if the opposite were the case it is not.
also once a mat becomes pm it becomes even worse for the chinese while obama is for equality for all.
sg's situation is diff from usa's.
what about Jews? they also belonged to this category...but still smarter than you leh....many are now in top positions in US Congress..and Wall Street...
I don't doubt their loyalty, and they know he/she represents all Singaporeans when he/she is elected.
What I do ask though is that any candidate for the PM must be qualified, and have the potential to be someone really good. So that criteria transcends race, religion and even sex.
wat are u talking about????
u even know the future non chinese pm's, if there ever will be one, thinking will be??
Who doesn't know that???? DO u know cheating ppl is against the law??? Stealing and robbing is wrong too so why do ppl still do it?
I hope malaysia has a chinese PM that'll be a eye opener.
Three obstacles to a non-Chinese PM
Monday, 10 November 2008, 12:10 pm | 875 views
PN Balji / Guest Writer
It was a popular question to ask: Is Singapore ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister? Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s answer was, as expected, predictable.
It is possible, but not any time soon.
Hello, what else do you expect the PM to say?
I wonder what the Singapore establishment’s thinking was when a young, wet-behind-the-years American — and, mind you,a black at that — appeared on the American political stage with an audacious message to change his country.
More than a hint came from an establishment figure, Mr S Dhanabalan, when he responded this way to a question on Mr Barack Obama’s chances in the American presidential elections: “Well, he may not even make it through the primary, right?” he said a year ago.
How wrong this former political heavyweight and now chairman of Temasek Holdings was. Fast forward a year later, and flying in the face of Mr Obama’s momentous victory and the results of two recent surveys by the Institue of Policy Studies and the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Mr Lee’s reiteration of an age-old belief must have irked many thoughtful and forward-looking Singaporeans.
The issue is not really about race. There are three other obstacles to a non-Chinese becoming PM.
The country’s one-party politics, stability and demographics.
Mr Obama arose in a country where a two-party system is fully-entrenched and at a time when the US was directionless, in a mess and when the gap between the whites and the African Americans, Latinos and Asians was being closed.
All three conditions don’t exist in Singapore.
The possibility of a strong opposition party emerging to challenge the dominance of the ruling People’s Action Party is remote, if not unimaginable, at least in the immediate future. If there were such a party with a Malay or Indian Singaporean as its leader and they had a sound alternative plan for Singapore’s future, what is there to say the citizens won’t give them the vote.
Nothing, if the other two ingredients of instability and a more equal racial mix are present. Unless a rogue leader in the guise of a white shirt and white trousers manages to seize control of both the party and government and plunder the country, the chances of this oasis of calm turning into a ravaged city are extremely slim. So why take a gamble and test the waters with a non-Chinese leader?
As for demographics, Singapore’s whopping 74.7 per cent Chinese population makes that gamble unnecessary.
The only disconcerting aspect in this debate is that a minority candidate who has the professional and personal credentials to be the PM won’t get that opportunity to make it to the top.
Now, what does that say about the government’s often-stated belief in meritocracy and racial equality?
Mr Dhanabalan had that opportunity in 1990 but he was ruled out because of his race. Today, 18 years later, things have hardly changed.
In a country where the government has great clout and has immense persuasive powers to change mindsets, what is needed is a belief that a truly inclusive society can only be to Singapore’s reputation and advantage.
Who else to effect that change than a Prime Minister who gave hope to so many Singaporeans with his inclusive society speech more than four years ago?
———-
Monday, 10 November 2008, 12:10 pm | 875 views
PN Balji / Guest Writer
It was a popular question to ask: Is Singapore ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister? Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s answer was, as expected, predictable.
It is possible, but not any time soon.
Hello, what else do you expect the PM to say?
I wonder what the Singapore establishment’s thinking was when a young, wet-behind-the-years American — and, mind you,a black at that — appeared on the American political stage with an audacious message to change his country.
More than a hint came from an establishment figure, Mr S Dhanabalan, when he responded this way to a question on Mr Barack Obama’s chances in the American presidential elections: “Well, he may not even make it through the primary, right?” he said a year ago.
How wrong this former political heavyweight and now chairman of Temasek Holdings was. Fast forward a year later, and flying in the face of Mr Obama’s momentous victory and the results of two recent surveys by the Institue of Policy Studies and the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Mr Lee’s reiteration of an age-old belief must have irked many thoughtful and forward-looking Singaporeans.
The issue is not really about race. There are three other obstacles to a non-Chinese becoming PM.
The country’s one-party politics, stability and demographics.
Mr Obama arose in a country where a two-party system is fully-entrenched and at a time when the US was directionless, in a mess and when the gap between the whites and the African Americans, Latinos and Asians was being closed.
All three conditions don’t exist in Singapore.
The possibility of a strong opposition party emerging to challenge the dominance of the ruling People’s Action Party is remote, if not unimaginable, at least in the immediate future. If there were such a party with a Malay or Indian Singaporean as its leader and they had a sound alternative plan for Singapore’s future, what is there to say the citizens won’t give them the vote.
Nothing, if the other two ingredients of instability and a more equal racial mix are present. Unless a rogue leader in the guise of a white shirt and white trousers manages to seize control of both the party and government and plunder the country, the chances of this oasis of calm turning into a ravaged city are extremely slim. So why take a gamble and test the waters with a non-Chinese leader?
As for demographics, Singapore’s whopping 74.7 per cent Chinese population makes that gamble unnecessary.
The only disconcerting aspect in this debate is that a minority candidate who has the professional and personal credentials to be the PM won’t get that opportunity to make it to the top.
Now, what does that say about the government’s often-stated belief in meritocracy and racial equality?
Mr Dhanabalan had that opportunity in 1990 but he was ruled out because of his race. Today, 18 years later, things have hardly changed.
In a country where the government has great clout and has immense persuasive powers to change mindsets, what is needed is a belief that a truly inclusive society can only be to Singapore’s reputation and advantage.
Who else to effect that change than a Prime Minister who gave hope to so many Singaporeans with his inclusive society speech more than four years ago?
———-
Minority PM: Singapore boleh in 1955 but not in 2008
Monday, 10 November 2008, 2:57 pm | 398 views
Serville Zervant
On 6th April 1955, Singapore saw its first chief minister equivalent to its prime minister today being elected into parliament (then known as legislative assembly). He was not from the Chinese community who form the majority of the local population. Nor was he a Malay, the largest minority group and indigenous community of Singapore. Nor was he an Indian which is one of the two official minority groups in Singapore. Instead he was from a more pronounced minority group who numbered around 500 then. The people of Singapore then elected a Jew to lead their country.
This political party that this Jewish chief minister was affiliated to was the then Labour Front. It did not have a history of parliamentary victories to propel him to his seat. The election of David Marshall, a Jew, was rather not a freak result of the election but the choice of the people. In his short-lived two year government he did not lose favor with his people either. Instead he only resigned due to his failure to win independence for Singapore.
1955 was a time Singapore population lacked the present day affluence. Though literacy was not as high as now, people were well informed as they had a huge variety of print newspapers. The country was still recovering from the post second world war instabilities and uncertainties. The world was changing itself like never before. The empire on which the sun never used to set started falling apart. Even in such a confused and apprehensive environment, the Singapore population was sure about choosing a minority as its leader. On a global scale this was indeed a remarkable achievement since even many civilized western countries had not seen a minority individual being elected as head of state by the electorate then. Only fifty years later are they able to achieve what Singapore achieved in 1955. Even India, the largest democracy, only was able to provide sufficient votes for a non-Indian to be the leader of the government a few years ago.
However fifty three years later, we hear our Singapore prime minister saying a minority PM is not possible today. He is probably right. But then that brings about the question why is Singapore not able to repeat this achievement today. Why is it that in this area where other countries are making giant leaps upwards, we have fallen to where they were fifty years ago?
One might argue the population then had little wealth and so they were gambling their votes away. Realities cannot be that simple. There were certain proportions of the population who were at poverty line and they were desperate to get out of it. The working class Singaporeans saw the active reconstruction of the post war economies in Europe and Asia and they were keen to see that happen in Singapore. If this is not true, we will never have seen the enthusiasm and high productivity in the then labour force.
Given the large variety of information across a huge number of print media, the population was definitely more informed than the current population. Choice was something they could make confidently. Old photos clearly show large turnouts at any political event of any party which only show the population had great interest for politics also.
Contrasting that to Singapore in 2008, we see today a population that has only one news company to serve their whole domestic information needs. Their interest in politics is pathetic. It is at the most discussed in taxi journeys and coffeeshops. Discussions by some really tiny groups like TOC is a far cry from how it used to be in 1955. Even when a PAP MP speaks at dinners, half the times the crowds are totally not interested at all.
I have noticed that the average Singaporeans gets depressed when politcal issues are discussed. They are more interested in entertainment, recreation, making more money and buying more products. Even the ruling PAP is having problems finding good candidates. There is probably a slight improvement today from a few years ago but overall the situation dismally is a huge step backwards from 1955. It is about time Singaporeans sit back and reflect what has caused all this deterioration in the last 53 years and seek to rectify the situation. No economic achievement can sustain itself without parallel political achievements.
Monday, 10 November 2008, 2:57 pm | 398 views
Serville Zervant
On 6th April 1955, Singapore saw its first chief minister equivalent to its prime minister today being elected into parliament (then known as legislative assembly). He was not from the Chinese community who form the majority of the local population. Nor was he a Malay, the largest minority group and indigenous community of Singapore. Nor was he an Indian which is one of the two official minority groups in Singapore. Instead he was from a more pronounced minority group who numbered around 500 then. The people of Singapore then elected a Jew to lead their country.
This political party that this Jewish chief minister was affiliated to was the then Labour Front. It did not have a history of parliamentary victories to propel him to his seat. The election of David Marshall, a Jew, was rather not a freak result of the election but the choice of the people. In his short-lived two year government he did not lose favor with his people either. Instead he only resigned due to his failure to win independence for Singapore.
1955 was a time Singapore population lacked the present day affluence. Though literacy was not as high as now, people were well informed as they had a huge variety of print newspapers. The country was still recovering from the post second world war instabilities and uncertainties. The world was changing itself like never before. The empire on which the sun never used to set started falling apart. Even in such a confused and apprehensive environment, the Singapore population was sure about choosing a minority as its leader. On a global scale this was indeed a remarkable achievement since even many civilized western countries had not seen a minority individual being elected as head of state by the electorate then. Only fifty years later are they able to achieve what Singapore achieved in 1955. Even India, the largest democracy, only was able to provide sufficient votes for a non-Indian to be the leader of the government a few years ago.
However fifty three years later, we hear our Singapore prime minister saying a minority PM is not possible today. He is probably right. But then that brings about the question why is Singapore not able to repeat this achievement today. Why is it that in this area where other countries are making giant leaps upwards, we have fallen to where they were fifty years ago?
One might argue the population then had little wealth and so they were gambling their votes away. Realities cannot be that simple. There were certain proportions of the population who were at poverty line and they were desperate to get out of it. The working class Singaporeans saw the active reconstruction of the post war economies in Europe and Asia and they were keen to see that happen in Singapore. If this is not true, we will never have seen the enthusiasm and high productivity in the then labour force.
Given the large variety of information across a huge number of print media, the population was definitely more informed than the current population. Choice was something they could make confidently. Old photos clearly show large turnouts at any political event of any party which only show the population had great interest for politics also.
Contrasting that to Singapore in 2008, we see today a population that has only one news company to serve their whole domestic information needs. Their interest in politics is pathetic. It is at the most discussed in taxi journeys and coffeeshops. Discussions by some really tiny groups like TOC is a far cry from how it used to be in 1955. Even when a PAP MP speaks at dinners, half the times the crowds are totally not interested at all.
I have noticed that the average Singaporeans gets depressed when politcal issues are discussed. They are more interested in entertainment, recreation, making more money and buying more products. Even the ruling PAP is having problems finding good candidates. There is probably a slight improvement today from a few years ago but overall the situation dismally is a huge step backwards from 1955. It is about time Singaporeans sit back and reflect what has caused all this deterioration in the last 53 years and seek to rectify the situation. No economic achievement can sustain itself without parallel political achievements.
Minority PM: Time for the leadership to take the lead
Sunday, 9 November 2008, 9:54 pm | 1,099 views
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.
———-
Sunday, 9 November 2008, 9:54 pm | 1,099 views
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.
———-
Spot on. How silly can they be and on front page.
Dear Haireez
The entire GRC concept and operation is based on a singular premise that a minority MP will not be voted purely and merit in view of racial profile of the country and the respective wards.
So why the fuck are we talking about a minority PM.
Your angle of attack should first start on the GRC.
Balji's first post after being appointed Director Propaganda and Modern Mindgames.
I took out the hubris so the less capable grasp it. Note the customary conclusion in the last sentence just in case the establishment read it wrongly.
Asking for the impossible, very funny people. wait long long, what u expect words coming out from lhl?
Cos the damn malays have something against the chinese. They want to take advantage of the chinese and treat them poorly. They might not like indians but i am sure they hate chinese more.
Similar threads
