Hey ho Mark,
Very astute and empathetic observations Mark. I'm glad to have your observations that can only add more value to this largely unexplored (by local 'democrats', 'socialists', bloggers, 'opposition') issue. Your concrete examples of what this or that Tan said or didn’t say is certainly helpful as my own focus is on the meaning of the overarching affair. Hence, your input is certainly invaluable.
To add... the problem with these blokes, in consideration of your account, is that whilst they pay lip service to the interests of the 'minorities', they fail to state what the overall problem is, i.e. underdevelopment, marginalisation, emerging from pro-chinese policies, and now, popular discrimination taken as the norm by all races.
For the candidates to engage in a detailed analysis of discrimination would in itself be quite a self-incriminating venture as the resulting implication would be that they themselves might have become eligible presidential candidates because of said discrimination For the candidates to engage in a detailed analysis of discrimination would in itself be quite a self-incriminating venture as the resulting implication would be that they themselves might have become eligible presidential candidates because of said discrimination in the past decades which enabled them to achieve what they did personally and hence, qualify. So, it is not surprising that they might tend to steer clear of the details comprising the issue and just stick to traditional and superficial approaches and statements like, 'uplifting the Malays', or anything else that sounds good but does not simultaneously compromise Chinese dominance or their being 'preferred'.
As 'V'(chinese girl from singapore) stated quite a few times over the past few days, this so-called 'singaporean' elections will only serve to further reinforce the notion amongst the chinese that the non-Chinese are good for nothing significant.
To which, I added, that amongst the non-Chinese, they would bring up their kids in such a way that they would not work towards such significant positions as 'it is a Chinese preferred' arena - i’ve heard many non-Chinese state as much with regards to particular professions over the past few decades whereas the Chinese never needed to state it, or have their ambitions circumscribed by such notions. This is already the case with the non-Chinese only focusing on professions where there is no such racial bar. It is a combination of this, plus the racial self-absorption engendered by policies and legalism-confucianism that enabled Lee Hsien Loong to state, with impunity, that singapore isn’t ready for a non-Chinese PM.
Hence, the non-Chinese are today doing less than what they were doing in the 70s and 80s (when they were observably more advanced in the creative and intellectual sense) and even less than the Chinese today. What we’ve witnessed is basically an underdevelopmental process. The first stage is where the non-Chinese will feel the pressure to abide by ‘Chinese’ norms, and do and think as they do via a host of pressures from the work to the social arena. This is reinforced by the media, national celebrations, work and social arena. The second stage will see the non-Chinese being like the ‘Chinese’, but also becoming less because they wouldn’t go into all fields and interests as do the Chinese because of the perception that this or that ‘is a chinese thing’. In a nutshell, ‘being like the ‘Chinese’, but considering less ambitions, makes one even less. I was personally conscious of this problem more than a decade ago but abided by the perspective that i still ought to do whatever caught my fancy even if it didn’t translate to ‘success’. Hence, I tend to state that ‘whilst i’m from singapore, i’m despite singapore’.
V did also ask earlier, ‘perhaps there aren’t many non-Chinese whom are qualified to stand for president....since the criteria is quite high...like holding high positions and so on.’ To this, i stated, if discrimination is already true, it wouldn’t be surprising that there might not be as many ‘qualified’ non-Chinese to participate in said elections. This way, it wouldn’t come across as racist as the racism had already taken place in related arenas to ensure that when the time comes for the qualified to step up, it would be a mostly Chinese line-up. Or as it is in this elections, a wholly ‘Tan’ affair. When ‘V’ asked my mom whom she voted for, my mom replied, ‘One of the Tans’. The fact that she can make such a statement is itself indicative of the degree of cultural and racial self-absorption in the state to the point that they're all 'Tans'. Names aren’t necessary. It’s akin to, ‘one of the chinese’. ‘Multicultural’ indeed.
With regards to an alternative voting system, what they should be looking for is pure PR, or Proportionate Representation. Or perhaps that is what they’re talking about. But I doubt that the government would be silly enough to consider it because if it is applied to the presidential elections, people would soon be demanding that it be applied in the parliamentary elections as well. But you’re right. I doubt that people would be considering this if the Tan, version ‘cheng bok’, won the elections. And again, I have to agree with you. I wouldn’t vote for a Qin-non-Chinese either.
having one person, president or otherwise, with a veto basically renders the whole population politically impotent betwixt elections. What next? Have a non-elected president to check on the elected one? Silly gits. Anyway, this whole presidential thing is quite pointless - as you yourself recognised. I don’t see how it is democratic to have one bloke veto anything. It’s no different from the so-called Queen in the UK, or the House of Lords, with the only difference being that the President is elected. The value of democracy lies not only in the person in power being elected, and hence, representative, but also in her/is being checked by opposition and debate from the other side of the house. That can only possibly be the case in a parliamentary system. I’m surprised that none of these ‘democrats’ in singapore realise that point.
That’s the thing with fascist ‘democrats’ and ‘socialists’. They don’t know their fascism from the democracy. As you stated, if they had fought for true egalitarian multiculturalism, lots of the evils that they bemoan wouldn’t exist. And, to add, they wouldn’t be banging on about the presidential elections and who ought to win as they would realise that not only would it compromise multiculturalism as a whole - as you stated - given the predominance of Tans as opposed to Ahmads, Rajas and Johns, but that having one person, president or otherwise, with a veto basically renders the whole population politically impotent betwixt elections. What next? Have a non-elected president to check on the elected one? Silly gits.
All we need to focus on is to get more opposition into parliament, provided that they aren’t the racially-biased version that they currently are. And even if the opposition was to take the reins of the government, i would certainly want more PAP opposition members in parliament as well to supply opposing perspectives. (though personally, i’d prefer all parties to be socialist who have different approaches to things so that on the whole, whatever the party, whatever the arguments, whatever the opposition, we will know for certain that no elite is going to be laughing its way to the bank with the people’s money. ‘Solo bear’ in his recent ‘critique’ of socialism is just making a public exposition of his ignorance-cum-self absorption.) As you stated,
“in essence, the elected presidency system is a corollary of the Legalist-Confucian system, which I would advocate abolishing unequivocally”
You certainly have my vote, ‘Mark’, if you stand for elections. Parliamentary that is.