Minister Lim Hwee Hua’s remark that ‘the comparatively low level of representation in higher political and corporate office does not belie the fact that women can attain such office on merit[1]‘ set me thinking about my perception of women MPs in Singapore. I admit not knowing any woman MP personally so my perception of women MPs here is based primarily on what I read about them in the local papers and on the Internet. I gather that there are many like me who also form their perceptions similarly.

The term ‘merit’ suggests some praiseworthy quality. The recent table-tennis episode – in which a woman MP first publicly showed her anger at a coach’s handling of his charges and then in a later incident publicly questioned his suitability for the Best Coach award only to lie low when the aggrieved ex-coach returned to Singapore to seek clarification of her remarks — left me wondering whether in spite of the Government’s efforts in trying so hard to attract women MPs into service, it is still experiencing difficulties in attracting good candidates that once in office can withstand the scrutiny of the public eye and still come out tops. I remember a capable woman MP who stepped down from the public eye after an incident in which she was seen washing her hands following some handshaking with hawkers at a wet market.

For all MPs, merit is not only about competence at work. It is also about being seen publicly as doing a good job. This is not the civil service or some corporate body where you are accountable only to your superiors. This is politics where you are rated by people in your constituency and are always in the public eye. This is where perceived slips of judgment can mean a loss of votes in an election year. That certainly is not good news for the MP or for the party the MP belongs to.

For a lesson on how to handle public perception, look at how Minister Khaw Boon Wan is handling the H1N1 flu situation. Also, look back at how he led us through the difficult NKF episode. Such bright sparks are not nurtured. They are born through fire — going into a crisis and coming out unscathed. So finding the right MP, whether man or woman, is not about merely scrutinising short-listed capable people and getting them elected into Parliament. It is about letting them go through the baptism of fire in the public eye. If they succeed, good news for Singapore. If not, the Government just has to go on trying till it gets enough of these MPs, though this will be difficult to do with such a small population to sieve talent from. And with women MPs, it just may be more difficult.

[1] Source: The Straits Times Forum Page A24, 18 Jun 2009

Source: The Straits Times 4 Jun 2009 Page B6

Second Minister for Finance and Transport Minister Lim Hwee Hua addressed some 360 students from 54 secondary schools

Asked by a student to elaborate on laws to protect secularism here, she referred to the recent leadership tussle in the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) and said, “In this common space, we cannot impose our religions on others. All of us have to carefully guard against that.”

Source: The Straits Times 27 May 2009 Page A18 (Edited excerpt from a speech by NMP Thio Li-ann in Parliament yesterday.)

What is the situation in Singapore? DPM Wong emphasised the secular nature of the political arena and how keeping ‘religion’ and ‘politics’ separate was a key rule of political engagement.

What this means specifically is that laws and policies derive their legitimacy not from divine sanction but from a democratically elected government. Law generally applies to and equally protects all citizens, regardless of race, religion or social status. Clearly, the Singapore model of secularism is anti-theocratic in that religious tenets and secular law are separated, not conflated.

While anti-theocratic, the Singapore secularism is not anti-religious. This is a vital distinction.

Source: The Straits Times Page A22, 20 May 2009
Article by: Kishore Mahbubani

Imagine that there is a religious organisation in Singapore which believes that it is immoral for teenage girls to be forced to expose their arms, legs and faces when they go to school. They say: ‘There’s a line that God has drawn for us, and we don’t want our nation crossing that line.’  Hence, since the teachers of Singapore are enforcing the rule, this religious organisation marshals its members, takes over the Singapore Teachers’ Union and uses it to advocate the argument that female teenagers should be ‘free’ to choose whatever dress they want to wear to school. They argue that it is wrong to impose the corrupt Western school uniforms on young women of their religion.

Please note that the above is not a hypothetical example. This argument over school uniforms has been played out in France. Should we allow this to happen in Singapore too?