GE2020 - Tharma for PM?

If you don’t know about it, someone lodged a police report against DPM Heng Swee Keat. 

Can you believe that? 

Personally, I would like to think that this the gutter politics TCB was talking about regarding the recent police report lodged against WP’s candidate Raeesah Khan. 

That police complaint made was against HSK’s remarks at a March 2019 forum when he said that “Singapore was not yet ready for a non-Chinese prime minister.”

Unsurprisingly, after consulting with AGC, the police was advised that no offence was committed. “Mr Heng’s remarks, in the context they were made, do not evidence any intent to wound anyone’s racial feelings or promote enmity between different races.” 

That was the end of it, and well, intention wise, I can’t disagree with that. 

Anyway, in response, HSK said that he made that statement then because in his interactions with residents in past elections, the “views supportive of a non-Chinese PM are not as common among people from the older generation.”

Well, there is some basis for that. In a survey done in 2016, most of those surveyed preferred a prime minister of their own race. 

98% of the majority race (Chinese) here prefers their PM to be Chinese as compared to only 53% for a Malay PM or 60% for an Indian PM (and I really don’t know whether it helps if Tharman is able to speak Mandarin and some dialect, which he did occasionally). So, clearly there are some resistance or reservation.

But my point goes beyond that, that is, whether we are ready for an Indian PM. Apart from the survey, HSK’s view was mainly taken from “the older generation.” I wonder, how the younger generation feels about it?

In addition, I wonder whether the selection of the PM within the party is different from the selection of a candidate for MP in an election?Clearly it is. There is an important difference. One is by vote from the cabinet and the other by vote from the people. 

And if there is a difference, the next question is, should the selection of a PM within the elected party be dependent more on the sentiments on the ground than the candidate’s competence (and his camaraderie with fellow colleagues) within the cabinet?

Anyway, I feel that it should be different because the criterial is different, notwithstanding the people’s sentiments. 

And if I take one example, a recent one, and at the risk of flogging the dead horse, it is the often-exhumed case of the Elected Presidency. 

Now, I know PM Lee said that he had lost some political capital when he quite unexpectedly changed the constitution for the sake of the EP. But he also believed it was a victory nevertheless for diversity and multiculturalism in the long run. 

Mind you, he did that very much against the general sentiments on the ground (short of a poll to verify it), and some felt that there are some issues that were simply beyond race. Nevertheless, he did what was in his view necessary and we have our first EP by default. Now, it is left to history to tell us whether it was a decision that will come with more gains than losses for the country. 

So, in the same way, this should also apply to the selection of a PM, regardless of race, language or religion, right? 

In other words, if the EP generally went against public sentiment in order to foster racial harmony, then the reason given by HSK that the “older generation” are not supportive of an Indian PM at this time should equally be taken with a pinch of salt right? Is that what is holding the government back, when it comes to preferring HSK over, say, the Mandarin-speaking Tharman or any other Indian/Malay/Eurasian candidate, for example?

In the end, the PM that Singaporeans deserve should be one that can unite the people, instil hope and confidence, and move us forward in the direction of progress, equality and inclusiveness. 

And at this time, from a personal point of view, Tharman’s social mobility escalator and equal opportunity trampoline are empowering symbols of unity and confidence we as a nation can put our trust and faith on. 

In a recent speech, he said: “It’a not about the Government; it’s about Singapore Together. Find your niche, find your passion, the areas you want to work in. And let’s help spiral up our whole system, our whole society. It can be done. We can emerge from Covid not more divided, but with a more cohesive society.” 

That seems like PM material to me. And whether as a president or a prime minister, they can’t function without being seen to be, and believed as a symbol of unity and hope for all Singaporeans. 

So, it is true that HSK did not commit any offence when he made that remarks last year, but I feel he ought to be more candid with us on the other considerations, if any, that go into PM selection, rather than one based on a sample view gathered from his past election interaction.