Advertisement

Representation in politics: whose progress is it?

Kirsten Han is a Singaporean blogger, journalist and filmmaker. She is also involved in the We Believe in Second Chances campaign for the abolishment of the death penalty. A social media junkie, she tweets at @kixes. The views expressed are her own.

After decades of waiting, Singapore finally has two Malay full ministers in Cabinet.

The recent Cabinet reshuffle saw Masagos Zulkifli promoted to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office as well as Second Minister for Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs. It’s a step forward for Malay representation in local politics, but Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s comment on his promotion deserves more scrutiny:

“I am promoting Masagos Zulkifli to full Minister. He has performed well, both in his ministries and as an MP in Tampines. It is the first time we are having two Malay full ministers, which reflects the progress of the Malay community.”

There’s quite a bit here to unpack. Firstly, why has it taken so long to have two Malay full ministers? And crucially: why is this step seen as “Malay progress”?

To characterise this situation as “Malay progress” is highly problematic, because it suggests that there were previously no Malay candidates who were up to scratch. It implies that, while we’ve never had trouble finding worthy Chinese candidates to fill ministerial posts, it has simply been impossible to identify more than one Malay person at a time worthy of being minister.

Beyond this, there is also the source to consider: although Lee Hsien Loong has the prerogative to decide who is worthy to serve in his Cabinet, how does that equate to “progress” within the Malay community?

This is a great opportunity for us to start talking about representation in decision-making roles, and how the system works.

It’s hard to buy the reasoning that there have been so few Malays capable of becoming full ministers in Singapore’s independent history. While it belittles an entire community, such an explanation also ignores institutional barriers that ethnic minorities have to face. I’d posit that the lack of Malay representation in Cabinet comes not from a dearth of Malay talent, but from a mindset that suggests that Singapore isn’t ready for a “non-Chinese PM”, or that Malays generally can’t go as far as their non-Malay counterparts in the military (although Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen has explained that the previous exclusion of Malays from the Navy had to do with the practical issue of serving halal food on ships).

Masagos’ promotion is more a step forward for racial equality, than any proof of progress or worth on the part of a particular community (that shouldn’t be required to prove their worth anyway).

In this vein, we should look at other issues of representation within local politics. For instance, why has Singapore only seen a grand total of two women in Cabinet since 1959, and never more than one at a time? Are we really to believe that, with the high access to education and participation in the workforce, it’s been impossible to find qualified candidates? Or are there particular mindsets or barriers in the way that prevent or dissuade women from rising to these decision-making roles?

As Singapore matures, it’s important for us to have diverse viewpoints and perspectives represented in local politics, so as not to have the government lose touch with the ground completely. For that to happen, we’re going to have to go beyond the traditional standards of success and worthiness as defined within a Chinese-majority, patriarchal system.