How to Judge Politicians When Relatability Becomes a Moving Target

Memes on 'humble roots' candidates and minister's remarks offer food for thought

- Bhavan Jaipragas

Who qualifies as a "natural politician" in Singapore? Who earns instant "star catch" status, and who radiates "political lost cause" vibes?

Are voters applying one yardstick to PAP hopefuls, and another to the opposition?

These are perennial election-season questions and, in this ongoing campaign, there is fresh fodder to chew upon.

Let's consider some new material: Viral memes skewering candidates, mainly from the PAP, who have touted their "humble background"; the pundits suggesting the WP's slate is of a significantly higher calibre than in previous polls; and some refreshingly candid comments on several strands of the debate from Education Minister Chan.

The PAP's assistant secretary-general, come from his party's perspective, but his observations about double standards in how candidates are judged will resonate with middle-ground Singaporeans who recognise the inconsistency.

His core contention: When the PAP puts up candidates from humble backgrounds who have achieved stellar careers in civil service or uniform, their working-class roots are virtually ignored. Simply by virtue of their social mobility and PAP affiliation, these candidates are cast as perpetuating an "elitist" party narrative.

If the PAP fields a Harvard graduate, the reaction, as Mr Chan puts it in the Yah Lah But interview, would be "Alamak! See, so elitist!" Yet when the opposition presents someone with the same prestigious credentials, that person becomes a celebrated "star catch".