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.

———-

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

No Queen’s Counsel for for PM-Ngerng defamation suit: High Court

The High Court today dismissed an application by blogger Roy Ngerng’s for a…

潘耀田对“重录”国歌抛数疑问 朱比赛女:不该拿国歌做实验

12月3日早上11时20分,重新录制的新加坡国歌《前进吧,新加坡!》,在新加坡国家美术馆前响起。60年前的同样时刻,新加坡的国旗、国歌和国徽,首次展现在国人眼前。 配合纪念国家象征推出的60周年,新加坡交响乐团在今年8月7日重新录制我国国歌。重录版保留了作曲家朱比赛(Zubir Said)的谱曲,以及本地作曲家潘耀田在2001年的编曲。 潘耀田在当年把原本G调的国歌降为F调,藉此配合大部分国人的音域。根据《联合早报》报导,文化、社区及青年部长傅海燕在本月2日曾表示,新加坡在60年前有了自己的旗帜、徽章和歌曲,对当时刚取得自治的新加坡来说意义非凡。 “60年后,我们同样得反思这个重要的里程碑。” 且不论国家发展的里程碑,是否非得透过重录国歌才能得到反思,而不是去审视更包容和平等的公共政策;然而当年的编曲老师也感叹,听了“新版本”国歌后,不出所料仍是他的编曲,但音质似乎也相差不远,“花了种种功夫和金钱,所得如此!还引起了网上许多有关“此举”的负面评论以及不必要的猜疑争议,是不是有点笨?” 在潘耀田老师的个人脸书,誌期本月4日的一则题为《从国歌的“音质”谈起》的贴文,回溯2001年录制国歌时,当局也同样花了大笔钱,从澳洲请来一个录音团队,录音效果虽然并不特别突出,但在一般开放环境大场合播放效果尚可,但他个人认为不值得那价钱。 “那时心直口快的就问了某个官员:为何当局不请当年在中港台红极一时的雨果唱片公司老总兼首席录音师,也是新加坡公民的易有伍来操刀?当然,问也是白问?!太太替有关方面圆场:也许他们不知道易有伍其人?我想:他们为什么不会“问”?” “整体感觉与原版分别不大” 对于“新版国歌”,他认为除了速度略快、加上可有可无的铜声和多一两声西洋钹,整体感觉和原来版本分别不大。“或许多了点朝气,但也仿佛少了点旧版本的庄严庄重?” 他说,兴许用贵重音响器材来听能听出不同,但普罗大众怎么可能特地去破费这些,仅仅为了听出其中差别? 再者,他也非议当局,未经与他商讨,便随意更动编曲者作品,似乎也是一种欠缺礼貌和文化意识的行为,“似乎不是所谓“第一世界”国家里所应该发生的事?”…

Kuwait, Qatar want its citizens to hold their travel plans to Singapore due to coronavirus outbreak

In light of the recent coronavirus outbreak, Kuwait has urged its citizens…

被医理会吊销行医执照,医生获判上诉得直

日前一名被指专业行为不当而医药理事会吊销执照的外科医师向高等法院上诉,于昨日(27日)获判上诉得直。 根据《雅虎新闻》报道,被告Dr Looi Kok Poh被指未给予一名外籍劳工充分的病假,外籍劳工当时是在工作期间发生工伤意外。 昨日,以大法官梅达顺为首的上诉庭三司审理上诉,裁定法庭未能证实被告违背了医疗守则。 法官认为根据所搜到的证据,不足以说明被告已违背了医疗守则所定义的专业操守。 法官也指出并无证明指正被告专业操守严重失当,故推翻了原先裁决,撤销对医生处分。 法官也特别指出,被告在根据伤者当时的条件,判定他可担任轻松职务,而且在医学上适当的职务是有利于伤者的康复。被告也同时向伤者与随同的工作人员一并解释相关轻松职务。 事发经过 2011年8月7日,印裔工人瓦达(译名,32岁)在造船厂工作时,由于钢板脱落压到右手造成右手中指粉碎性骨折。 当时,由被告进行第一阶段的手术。后来,被告诊断认为瓦达恢复良好可出院,并决定给予瓦达一天病假,并注明伤者在之后的七天内只能执行轻松职务。然而,当晚伤者右手再次疼痛,被安排见其他医生,医生当时却给出两天病假。…