OCTOBER 4 — In the midst of election fever, I first spotted the hashtag. It seemed innocuous enough — one person voicing an opinion at the height of “have an opinion” season.
A lot like punting — people gamely guessing who would win which ward and helm which ministry. Then I noticed it again and again. And again.
#tharman4PM
The concise social media lingo is heartening. Personally, as a racial minority (constantly reminded of this minority status) I have long found the myth of meritocracy in Singapore difficult to embrace because a state that wilfully excludes the most qualified person for a position on the basis of their race can be neither meritocratic nor racially unbiased.
But for a long time this is exactly what our elected leaders told us. Years ago, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew admitted he decided against Cabinet Minister S. Dhanabalan as his successor because Singapore was “not-ready” for a non-Chinese PM.
In 2008, his son would echo this sentiment when asked if Singapore was finally ready (following Barack Obama’s historic victory) for a non-Chinese PM: his response was possible but not anytime soon.
If it wasn’t so offensive, it would be hilarious.
Effectively, your government is telling you — that on the basis of your skin colour — no matter how deserving or effective you are, you can never rise to the proverbial top.
The man in the hashtag — Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam — seems to have adopted a Sen approach to the entire conversation. Speaking to Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria he said: “It seems to me inevitable that at some point, a minority prime minister — Indian, Malay, Eurasian, or some mixture — is going to be a feature of the political landscape.”
I don’t get it.
Bracing myself for accusations of overreacting or naiveté, I ask: Why did we allow this nonsense to go on for so long? Weren’t we told from the word go! (August 9, 1965, I am told) that this is a multi-racial city of equal opportunity regardless of race, language or religion — so shouldn’t we have been ready from that moment on?
Months ago, I examined this myth of meritocracy in this column. Days later at a dinner party, an acquaintance took the time to explain why he felt that argument was flawed.
Politics, he said, is different: you can have meritocracy in every other aspect — which Singapore does. He personally had benefited from this system — steadily rising the ranks of the Armed Forces and proudly ticked off the names of other minorities that held top-dog spots in the civil service.
But here’s my take: the Singapore political system is a unique beast and one that has long trumpeted its belief in meritocracy, so why exclude this entire (and important) section of Singapore society from the demands of a meritocratic system? If the opportunity isn’t equal across the board, then it isn’t equal at all.
Is Tharman the right man for the job? It would seem within the PAP cadre (and following the last election results the only cadre that matters) he seems to be the most qualified and if the trending hashtag is any indication: the most popular choice too.
It is a pity it took us 50 years to get here.
* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
