Are the appointments of the EP and PM racist in design?

I have noted some discussions in the TRE and some commentators insisting that the design of the election of the PM and the EP was racist in nature, favouring the Chinese community. Is that so? Where did it say so? To some small minds, it is very clear that it is racist, in favour of the Chinese majority.

Let’s look at the appointment of the PM? How does one become a PM here under the PAP? Where is it written that the PM must be a Chinese, in the Constitution or in the PAP manifesto? Come on, there is no such thing. The PAP has its own system of choosing their PM, by the CEC. The PM is elected by the majority of the PAP CEC members.  The PAP does not have a ruling that the election of a PM must be a Chinese. So, what is the fuzz all about?

What about the EP? Where was it stated that the EP must be from the Chinese majority? The EP was elected by the people in a presidential election. Tony Tan was PAP’s chosen candidate for the EP. The PAP can choose anyone from the minorities to be their nominated candidate, like SR Nathan.

But the other three candidates were also Chinese. So, these candidates applied for the position. They submitted their papers, they nominated themselves. There is no law saying a minority candidates cannot nominate themselves for the EP.  But, but the criteria favour the Chinese majority! Who set the criteria? Who agree to the criteria? If stag horns are found on the head of a stag, why blame the stag and accuse the stag of discrimination because a goat only got little horns?

Actually all the talks about changing the rules to ensure a minority candidate is unnecessary. The PAP had done it before by nominating SR Nathan. There is nothing to stop the PAP from nominating Halimah or Tharman as their candidate. The PAP brand will guarantee a win. In the SR Nathan case, no one dared to contest.

Coming back to the wild accusation that the system is discriminatory in favour of the Chinese majority, is it true?  The PAP is now going to redesign the rules and the system to favour a minority candidate. Is the PAP admitting that the rules and system were discriminatory and therefore must be changed?

Is this change progressive or regressive, good for Singapore in the future? Would LKY be turning in his grave that his ideals and concept of meritocracy is going to be dismantled and thrown into the rubbish bin and race will now become a factor in the determination of the EP?  Should our national pledge be torn away, should we rewrite the national pledge and remove the phrase, ‘regardless of race, language and religion’, and put into the constitution that race is a factor in the election of the EP?

I am waiting for the man to jump up from his grave to right the wrong that is being conceived and going to be enshrined in the Constitution. Meritocracy is no longer the core values of this country, race is. Instead of playing down on race and elevating meritocracy, a race neutral concept, this trend is like an about turn on govt policies. When it happens, then the Constitution will become racist.
The first legacy of LKY, meritocracy, is at risk of being dumped.

PS, there is this mischievous commentator in TRE called Harold claiming this,
‘At Independence, the agreement was reached that since it was always going to be more likely than not that the PM of Singapore will be a Chinese, then the President will be from a minority community.

That’s why all the first Presidents were minorities. (And don’t forget that for all the 51 years of our Independence, PMs have ONLY been Chinese.)

It was the PAP government that violated that agreement and convention with the introduction of the EP, much to the delight of racists, as we can see.’

This is a very mischievous and malicious rumour to spread as it would affect the people’s perception of the truth and the credibility of the govt. Let’s see if the govt would let this rumour to continue to float around.