r/singapore • u/NuclearPastaIsAThing • Sep 11 '25
I Made This [OC] How representative is Parliament? A look at its demographics
294
u/PeterBergmann69420 Sep 11 '25
Beautiful and simple chart, easy to read and informative. Nicely done, OP! I'm surprised at how well each of the races are represented proportionally, which kinda highlights how effective the GRC system is at ensuring inclusivity in terms of races. Conversely, I'm not that surprised that males and christians are overly represented, given that I don't think there's any system in place that regulates those demographics
86
u/Lostwhispers05 Mature Citizen Sep 11 '25
Males being over-represented is obviously expected, but Christianity's over-representation was pretty surprising to me. They're about ~15% or so of the population, but around ~45% of parliament!
20
u/orroro1 Sep 12 '25
Probably along socio-economic lines. Christians as a whole is wealthier than Buddhists for a number of historical reasons (eg old money families from colonial times are far more likely to be Christian than peasant families). It's likely the same reason why Indians are over represented as well, money.
18
u/Effective-Lab-5659 Sep 12 '25
has to to do with most christians choosing to go to mission schools which are mostly English educated. and then LKY deciding to close Natah back in the 70s and making English education critical for all government roles, changing all the schools to just English ones - which resulted in teachers who could only speak chinese losing their jobs, or teaching poorly.
grads who were in Natah, children who were educated in chinese schools basically were stuck as the new poor.
40
u/RelevantAsparagus318 Sep 11 '25
You go see NUS medicine school, male students who disrupted from NS to study to become doctors, I donāt have specific data, but I came across hundreds of them before. my impression was, among Chinese, 80-90% are Christian, finding a Buddhist is rare, Taoist non-existent. And majority of them live in landed properties. Finding someone who lives in HDB is like hitting jackpot.
-5
u/AltruisticStomach735 Sep 11 '25
I think the religions graph should be taken w a pinch of salt. The mod who made this also said in the top comment that he canāt find reliable sources for the religions of each MP and used mostly 2015 data
40
u/NuclearPastaIsAThing Sep 11 '25
no i didn't? i said that in lieu of recent official information on the religions of MPs, i went and noted down who swore on bibles during the opening of parliament. imo this is a pretty foolproof method to figuring out which MPs are christian
and it would be impossible to make a complete list using the old parliament data anyways, considering that less than a third of our current MPs were a part of the 12th parliament. also i'm not a mod lol
-1
4
u/United-Literature817 Sep 12 '25
I'm surprised at how well each of the races are represented proportionally, which kinda highlights how effective the GRC system is at ensuring inclusivity in terms of races
Not wanting to be that guy but this is false equivalence at its finest.
175
u/Necessary-Heart-4833 Sep 11 '25
May i ask why Christianity is very overrepresented? Is there a tedency for non Christian chinese to stay away from politics?
172
u/halloumisalami Senior Citizen Sep 11 '25
Not surprisingly really. Christianity has a lot of fraternisation and networking. I know some folks that join churches for the very reason of making connections and moving up in life. Ā
32
u/H3nt4iB0i96 Sep 11 '25
Unfortunately, I donāt think thereās any real scholarship about this, but to speculate thereās probably quite a few factors. For one, a ton of schools in colonial Singapore were mission schools, getting educated therefore also meant being exposed to Christianity and potentially converting. Over time, this meant that a large number of Singaporeans who had all the advantages of their education (especially at a time when education levels were generally much lower) were also more likely to be Christian. This then meant that homes with higher social economic status were also more likely to be Christian and have Christian children that had a head start over their peers from their available resources and so on.
I think the other factor here might be how successful the Varsity Campus Fellowship (VCF) was in the 1980s and 1990s in Singaporean Universities. Again, this is purely speculation and I have no evidence about this besides anecdotes. But a large number of āsuccessfulā Christians I know, converted in University during a time period where getting a degree was much less common.
27
u/drollawake Sep 11 '25
I think a more informative question is how does the PAP get their candidates, since they account for almost all MPs.
It is no secret that they have historically identified potential candidates through recommendations and arranged informal tea sessions to evaluate them.
As such, the other comment's answer about Christian fraternization and networking is relevant beyond ambitious individuals taking advantage of that route to rise up. It's simply a problem that'll worsen over time as long as the share of Christian candidates recommended by Christian "scouts" remains disproportionate compared to the share of non-Christian candidates recommended by non-Christian "scouts."
That's why a common tip for improving diversity is simply to widen the pool of candidates. The point is that even before candidates pass the tea sessions, there is a lot of pre-filtering that prevents qualified candidates from reaching that stage.
13
u/NuclearPastaIsAThing Sep 11 '25
It's simply a problem that'll worsen over time
all good points but i wanted to address this, because i looked at when PAP MPs joined parliament and the share of christians among them has actually been getting more proportional over time:
election intake christian MPs total MPs percentage GE2001 3 3 100% GE2006 5 10 50% GE2011 8 13 62% GE2015 6 12 50% GE2020 9 19 47% GE2025 9 27 33% of course i only looked at MPs that are still in parliament so you could argue that maybe non-christian MPs serve shorter stints, but there's definitely a trend here
6
u/drollawake Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25
I'd be wary of making conclusions based on the small sample sizes for each intake, especially the starting point which is the biggest outlier with the smallest sample size.
Take out the starting and ending points and it simply looks like the proportion is stable.
I'd put more stock in the position that the change happened post GE2020 due to the larger sample sizes at those data points. Then again, that's only two data points so we can't say if it's an actual trend or a short-term blip.
ETA: A bit of stats clarification for nerds. Criticizing the sample size is relevant even though the numbers mentioned represent the full population of new MPs. We want to make inferences about the pool of candidates, not just the passing candidates, much less the elected ones. So the new MPs are supposed to be our samples from that population.
239
u/Sea_Consequence_6506 Sep 11 '25
Overrepresented among the English speaking uni educated demographic
10
u/roastmaster- Sep 11 '25
Any actual statistics to back this up though?
130
u/SignificanceWitty654 Sep 11 '25
nobody will publish such a specific statistic. but it is a reasonable deduction since colonial singapore was just a few generations ago
39
u/Lostwhispers05 Mature Citizen Sep 11 '25
There are some stats showing that Christians are more likely to have attained a Uni degree and live in private property than non-Christian Singaporeans.
However, I can't seem to find stats comparing between Christian Chinese vs non-Christian Chinese.
3
u/wackocoal Sep 13 '25
"correlation does not indicate causation"... keep that in mind.
the way you worded it, seems to imply being Christians is the cause...
it might be the other way: Attaining uni degree, living in private property, makes you more prone to become a Christian.
OR
Neither one are causes; they are effects that tend to go hand in hand, and there is a 3rd unknown common cause.56
u/prime5119 Sep 11 '25
no statistics but it's kinda obvious that it's common isn't it? my friend's mom even told my friend to join church for networking purposes..
-6
Sep 11 '25
[deleted]
28
Sep 11 '25
[deleted]
-1
Sep 11 '25
[deleted]
11
Sep 11 '25
[deleted]
1
u/MadeByHideoForHideo Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25
I hope your life have improved for the better! I can relate to everything you said and have the same views and experiences as you. Most of the "high flyers" for a lack of a better word, are indeed Christians. It's just one of those things you pick up on as you live longer and get exposed to the world through work, networking, etc. The high ses people are mostly Christian.
Too bad those people donāt blame god when kids get cancer or maimed in wars
Well you know what they say in these situations, that it is all part God's plan :) Absolutely sickening and disgusting thing to say to people whose loved ones pass away. It is truly a fool proof story to come up with eh? When things go their way, oh it's all thanks to God. When things turn for the worse? Oh it's all part of his plan. Ugh.
11
u/Sea_Consequence_6506 Sep 11 '25
Nope, I don't have anything except anecdotal and lived experience. Maybe we need Daniel PS Goh or some other academic to undertake some sociological research for this - I wouldn't be surprised he has already covered this in some way
-2
54
u/simbian East Coast Sep 11 '25
People tend to not talk about it nowadays but the incumbent went down a path which mean they suppressed the Chinese educated ethnic Chinese community which also included wealthy local Chinese businessmen.
Remember, Barisan Socialis did have a real support base and the PAP did not trust local capital with our economic development.
I am sure those with the family profile will be able to find family members who will recollect older members who will rant against the Old Man.
4
u/Effective-Lab-5659 Sep 12 '25
exactly, this is such a good show:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Songs_We_Sang
people should also read the book by Poh Soo Kai to get a different perspective of the times that singapore went through.
12
u/zaboron š F A B U L O U S Sep 11 '25
Christians have the urge to be missionary and spread the faith and convert others, no surprise they also climb high in politics, and are visible in their faith there.
Did you ever encounter a buddhist chat you up outside MRT to join their religion??
30
u/Schick_Mir_Ein_Engel Sep 11 '25
They are so aggressive with recruiting. Scary to be honest. Very persistent and relentless. At one point of my life ( I was 17/18), I made a mistake of entertaining them at the entrance of my door. Next, they kept coming to my door every week to talk to me. I told them I am not interested in their religion and I was just a stupid teen who just wanted to bullshit. But they kept coming. Then, I left Singapore for my Uni. Afterward , my mom told me she just pretended not to understand English and shut the door at their face.
14
1
u/doitnowinaminute Sep 11 '25
I'd guess age. If younger people tend to be less religious and less likely to be voted on, you get a skew.
1
u/peach113 Sep 12 '25
bro, look at top 5 most devloped countries in world today, they are all christian nations. no one understands why either.
-35
u/ThomzLC East side best side Sep 11 '25
I think it's also the inherent traits of Christians having a higher interest in contributing/making changes to society versus a non religious person whom may be more driven to pursue personal interests, careers and wealth?
37
u/roastmaster- Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25
Huh? Donāt know if you realise how ludicrous what you said is. Just because someone is non-religious doesnāt mean that they are necessarily or more likely to be āmore driven to pursue personal interests, careers and wealthā compared to a Christian with āinherent traitsā.
-13
u/ThomzLC East side best side Sep 11 '25
Ā someone is non-religious doesnāt mean that they are necessarily or more likely to be āmore driven to pursue personal interests, careers and wealthāĀ
Well... I feel it's true. I'm not saying its bad though, it's just an inherent characteristic of your interests. There could be a lot of non-religious people driven to non-profits or politics for sure, just that I'm not surprised there are more Christians wanting to affect change (not saying their change is automatically correct or wrong, good or bad).
2
Sep 11 '25
[deleted]
-1
u/ThomzLC East side best side Sep 11 '25
Maybe.
Actually being an MP won't be attractive to everyone, you sacrifice privacy also and have to be beyond reproach in your private life haha
12
15
u/OriollePennrose š³ļøāš Ally Sep 11 '25
lol.... good people do good things, regardless of religion. if doing good things hoping there a chance it get to to heaven, or at least not go to hell, is that really truly virtuous? āGood is good in the final hour, in the deepest pitāwithout hope, without witness, without reward. Virtue is only virtue in extremis.ā - Doctor Who
-10
u/ThomzLC East side best side Sep 11 '25
I'm not arguing that, having been both an active Christian and not - Christian groups tend to gravitate a lot of what they do to affecting change in society versus the everyday non-religious person we gravitate more towards our own careers and wealth.
Also, not contributing to politics is not "not doing good" is just personal choices.
And going into politics / affecting changes to society is not automatically "doing good" because it might not be something people agree with, it's more of executing your opinion on what works to society.
6
u/newnar Sep 11 '25
Bro you hit the nail on the head.
"Christian groups tend to gravitate a lot of what they do to affecting change in society"
This might be true, but in itself the statement doesn't mean the changes they are trying to affect are necessarily positive and not selfish. They are simply more zealous, and zealousness has nothing to do with contribution to society. It's not like we are short of examples where that went south.
1
u/ThomzLC East side best side Sep 11 '25
Yeah zealousness is the right word. I disagree to most Christian values being forced upon society but you gotta admit they are very stubborn in trying to affect policy making in general. Most of us just wanna have a good paying career lol.
6
u/newnar Sep 11 '25
Sir you are treading a very thin line with the definition of "contribution to society" in your earlier post. I think a better way to phrase it would be "forcing change upon society in a way that aligns with their own agenda". Because that's what it is and has always been.
1
u/ThomzLC East side best side Sep 11 '25
Different words, same meaning. To them and most of their supporters they are contributing. We might not agree with it, but such strong, aggressive language serves no purpose but to divide and incite hate.
8
u/kahn2k Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25
Christianity does not have a monopoly on morality and philanthropy. No religion does. Wanting to do good for the society has nothing to do with it.
And I dare say a number of our current politicians entered politics not with such altruistic motives.
4
8
u/Bcpjw Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25
Sounds reasonable, dare I say itās more Messiahās complex? Lol
1
u/ThomzLC East side best side Sep 11 '25
Pretty much. But I think a lot of people are misconstruing what I'm saying as Christians more likely to good versus average joe won't want to do good which is not what I'm trying to say lol.
1
u/iorikogawa666 Sep 11 '25
Damn, what a nutjob take. I hope Christians in general don't believe this bs.
1
Sep 11 '25
I think that could be true for some Christians in our community, but for the select few sitting in parliament... you mean to tell me they are genuinely there to serve the community? That none of them are there to further their personal and career interests? Brother please.
2
u/ThomzLC East side best side Sep 11 '25
Hahaha that's another topic altogether isn't it. No I don't believe all of them to be that altruistic
1
u/newnar Sep 11 '25
This is such an asinine take. I have no idea what one's belief in supernatural higher powers could have anything to do with their interest in contributing to society. Moreover, you chose to single-out Christianity, as if it were some single shining beacon amongst the myriad of belief systems around. If anything, hearing such hogwash makes me want to lose interest in contributing to a society where people who believe and spout such illogical facts are not immediately corrected.
0
u/ThomzLC East side best side Sep 11 '25
I didn't choose to single out Christianity, the topic at hand is why is there so many Christians in parliament haha
Like what you mention I think their zealousness is part of the reason why so many of them end up in politics.
5
u/newnar Sep 11 '25
Yea I get your point now, it's just that your choice of words can easily mislead readers to think that you mean to say "Christian=more likely to do good", which I understand is not really your position. Hence I would comment that your message is craftily misleading and if I may, even "ragebaity".
1
u/ThomzLC East side best side Sep 11 '25
Yeah point taken, instant torrent of backlash when I really didn't mean that. Oh well, wasn't my intent.
36
u/Effective-Lab-5659 Sep 11 '25
It's interesting that for the Indian population, the Malayalee v Tamil proportions are quite different from that in the general population v in parliament!
Any thoughts? My own experience is that while Tamil people migrated to Singapore before the Japanese occupation, a majority of the Malayalee migration to Singapore was during the 1970s post the world war.
any history buffs?
30
u/NuclearPastaIsAThing Sep 11 '25
an interesting thing i've observed is that malayalees in parliament are a relatively recent thing? if i'm not wrong there were no malayalee MPs before 2006, but since then we've had:
- 2006 ā 2011: hri kumar nair (1)
- 2011 ā 2015: hri kumar nair, vikram nair, janil puthucheary (3)
- 2015 ā 2016: vikram nair, janil puthucheary (2)
- 2016 ā 2025: nair, puthucheary, murali pillai (3)
- 2025 ā present: nair, puthucheary, pillai, dinesh vasu dash (4)
also apparently devan nair was malayalee which is pretty cool
6
46
u/Effective-Lab-5659 Sep 11 '25
another thought!
yes, these are markers which could be divisive issues. But honestly, I think the biggest issue now is class which may be more challenging to see?
but when you put say an average grandchild of Teochew Christian pig farmer whose land was taken back at cheap rates by the SG govt back in 1970s leaving tons of families jobless, grandchild of CK Tang (tang Choon Kheng who founded Tangs) v grandchild of wee cho yaw (of UOB fame) - who do you think has more in common?
if most of the people in parliament were drawn from the lights of CK Tang (Christian) and Wee Cho Yaw (Buddhist most likely) - it may seem like Christians and Buddhist are well represented? but surely the elephant in the room is class?
Fault lines aren't really so much about religion / race?
its more like new immigrants and class and money?
16
12
u/ArcticGlaceon Sep 11 '25
From a visualisation point of view this is pretty well made. What tool did you use?
18
20
81
u/YamyKamy roti prata cha kway teow Sep 11 '25
Christianity and men grossly overrepresented.
39
6
3
1
37
u/Legendtrophylover Sep 11 '25
The idea that someone will act in your benefit just because they have one similarity as you is so flawed.
It's a fun way to dissect the makeup of Parliament. But drawing MORE lines based on what people are born with is just so divisive.
Let's be real, all of the people in Parliament are more similar within themselves than with anyone on reddit.
59
u/UserWhateu Sep 11 '25
Unpopular take but I feel that over representation is not an issue if the candidates got chosen by merit, and not by race/religion/SES etc
You can argue all you want that certain demographics such as low SES people may not be represented in parliament. But realistically how to represent them when the pay for MP is $16K/month and people tend to vote for more educated politicians which means they are likely to be wealthier
63
u/SignificanceWitty654 Sep 11 '25
in an ideal world, everyone should only be chosen by merit.
but reality has systematic issues which disadvantage certain groups, and not representing them might lead to some policy blind spots or worsening of such systematic issues.
2
u/wackocoal Sep 13 '25
In an ideal world, we don't even need political parties; Candidates get voted in by their own merit, and not being a member of a political faction.
Being part of a group helps to speed up the decision making process for the voters.
E.g. if a candidate joins a conservative party, it is likely they support conservative policies.
if a candidate is christian, they are likely to support policies that goes in line with christian teachings.
if a candidate is english educated, they are likely to push for english based education programmes.
if a candidate is a female, she is likely to be more concern about funding for women's health and the women's charter.
i'm simplifying here but you get the idea.
-6
u/UserWhateu Sep 11 '25
Whatās your suggestion? I feel racial quotas or even restricting candidates by race in elections is unfair
24
u/SignificanceWitty654 Sep 11 '25
it doesnāt have to be fair. it has to be effective. It is not about the best candidates but the best team.
-8
u/UserWhateu Sep 11 '25
That would not be democratic which is already a core criticism of our political system.
Would you rather have a high quality candidate that ticks all the boxes that would end up with slight over representation, or have a low quality candidate that makes a clown out of themselves for the sake of representing everyone?
You can have your own choice, but at the end of the day, voters have to be the one that choose who will represent them. Welcome to basic democracy.
The last thing we want is a repeat of 2017 where no one could express their opinions
14
u/SignificanceWitty654 Sep 11 '25
i rather have the best team. having the best quality of candidates put together does not necessarily mean the best team.
imagine you are hosting a banquet for a large group consisting of a mix chinese, malay, and indians each with their own preferences. You are to assemble a team of chefs
would you choose the overall best chefs available, and risk having not enough chefs for malay and indian cuisine, or choose the best while specifically choosing some for their malay and indian food specialty?
-4
u/UserWhateu Sep 11 '25
Thatās your choice. I wonāt argue against it.
Everyone should be allowed to express their opinions on the ballot. We should let Singaporeans choose rather they want the ābest candidateā or ābest teamā
Imposing racial quotas or other race requirements will effectively force Singaporeans to accept the ābest teamā, which is not only undemocratic but also unnecessary in todayās society where Singaporeans are more educated
11
u/Heavy-Flow-2019 Sep 11 '25
But how did they exactly get there? Their connections from church may play a role in getting them there. Is it purely merit if the richer Christian Chinese have an advantage from childhood?
But realistically how to represent them
Why are you focused on the how, and not the why? Should we just be satisfied then, that there are underrepresented groups? Or is it just not a problem for you so you dont care?
3
u/Feralmoon87 Sep 11 '25
I agree, its not like the people who are mps ran on the fact they men or women, or on their religion. If their gender and religion wasnt a factor in why they were voted in or chosen, then its just a quirk that they are overrepresented rather than some conspiracy
6
u/Heavy-Flow-2019 Sep 11 '25
But how they got in a position to be elected is affected by their background. Is it not weird that we have so many Christians?
why they were voted in or chosen
Considering how many walkovers there are, and how little opposition we get, that is hardly a valid point
2
u/wackocoal Sep 13 '25
Many churches have deep pockets; they help out the candidates financially, or other assistance: like inviting a candidate as a guest to have a talk about whatever agenda that helps with their chances of winning.
Running for office is about financial support and putting your name out there.
4
u/eclairfastpass Mr. Ku Ku Bert š¦ Sep 11 '25
The entire GRC system was modelled after representation, there is no changing this. Representation matters to the fullest extent, without compromising quality.
6
u/ChungusMaximus23 Sep 12 '25
This chart is more clear than the infographics they release about GST voucher every year
13
4
7
11
u/gydot Own self check own self ā Sep 11 '25
Looks like we need more Hakka representation!
20
u/chiah-liau-bi96 Sep 11 '25
LKYās eternal clout is enough to carry the missing Hakka representation
5
3
u/worldcitizensg Sep 11 '25
So sex, and religion is where we see mismatch ? Am I reading it properly
5
u/Revolutionary_Ad6359 Sep 11 '25
Youths are underrepresented. The average age in singapore is 41 but so few parliment members are below 40.
2
u/edfghu Own self check own self ā Sep 11 '25
Would be interesting to see the religious composition from the past to now
2
2
6
u/thinkingperson Sep 11 '25
Religion: Others? lol
We know that Buddhism and Taoism, collectively form the majority in Singapore demographics. Why is it not properly presented and glossed over under "Others"?
I think it is severely skewed.
11
11
u/ImpressiveStrike4196 Sep 11 '25
Women are terribly underrepresented especially when theyāre in fact the majority of this country
33
u/Familiar_Guava_2860 Sep 11 '25
Women are terribly underrepresented especially in National Service when theyāre in fact the majority of this country.
7
1
3
u/DearElise Sep 11 '25
Nobody is talking about gender inequality because people believe that a handful of women in parliament is good enough
4
u/botsland Mature Citizen Sep 11 '25
The GRC system does a great job at protecting racial representation
2
Sep 11 '25
[deleted]
10
u/NuclearPastaIsAThing Sep 11 '25
see my main comment, but i actually did make a spreadsheet at docs.google [dot] com/spreadsheets/d/17bkRq6Yo0SfEuUeGdzQRl0lkwArvjwOg if you want more details. tried to post a link to it earlier but i think the filters in this sub are kinda weird
-3
1
1
1
u/Street_Ad3508 Sep 11 '25
What about Atheist?Ā
2
u/NuclearPastaIsAThing Sep 12 '25
on the old parliament website baey yam keng and sim ann are listed as having "NIL" religion, and jamus lim is agnostic. there's probably more though
1
u/Historical-Elk-977 Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25
This is cool too. The middle chart is most aligned
1
u/MonstaB Sep 17 '25
What?!
Last time used to be Chinese Indian Malay Eurasian..
What happened??? Become others?! Too many foreigners Eurasian out of the category already because not enough Singaporean babies.
1
u/perfectfifth_ Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25
Can see from the age spread that succession was important this election
-3
u/Intrepid-Food7692 Sep 11 '25
Why are there More Christian & Men in parliament than the population? I have seen some minister hold bibles even (during the ceremony) is this secular Singapore or St Singapore?
-3
Sep 11 '25
[deleted]
18
u/NuclearPastaIsAThing Sep 11 '25
i did actually, one of the more interesting things i found is that there are 4 malayalee MPs (dash, nair, pillai, puthucheary) despite them making up 0.66% of the population. i think that makes them the most overrepresented group by far
-14
u/callingo Sep 11 '25
There are more critical measures than just these 3.
What about networth, sexual orientation, occupation etc? These are way more critical in ensuring that policy debate covers a much wider spectrum of citizens impacted.
10
u/ArcticGlaceon Sep 11 '25
The boring answer is that the data for the dimensions you mentioned are less easy to get.
5
u/roastmaster- Sep 11 '25
You donāt need to be poor, gay or be of a certain occupation to empathise with those affected by policies. Obviously diversity helps, but this may not necessarily always make sense in the context of parliamentary representation, and there are other ways to engage those groups.
-2
u/callingo Sep 11 '25
So you disagree with the racial diversity required for a GRC? Representation is the only reason why this criteria is there
0
u/roastmaster- Sep 11 '25
I didnāt say that I disagree with racial diversity in GRCs, can you read what I said again and not put words in my mouth.
0
u/callingo Sep 11 '25
You donāt see the diversity in representation as necessary to āempathiseā. I think I read that correctly. Or are you referring to selective diversity?
-9
u/According-Farm7248 Sep 11 '25
why not put in statistics on how many left hand people vs right handed people in the population vs parliament?
-3
0
u/SKAOG East side best side Sep 11 '25
Damn, this is great work!
I'm surprised by how much the Malayali population is overrepresented in Parliament.
-8
u/CisternOfADown Own self check own self ā Sep 11 '25
Christianity in the population is underrepresented. Or at least alot become Christians when they die.
5
-12
u/StrikingExcitement79 Sep 11 '25
Is there a law that specify each segment of the population can only be represented by their own population segment? What if they are happy to be represented by persons from another population segment?
9
u/A_extra š I just like rainbows Sep 11 '25
Still useful to see how each demographic is represented even if there is no law
-5
u/StrikingExcitement79 Sep 11 '25
The fact that there is no xxxx persons in parliament does not mean there is no xxxx representations. It could just mean that xxxx segment has elected someone else to represent them. A more important metric is whether the law passed ignore the interest of xxxx group. For example, vape users might be unhappy that vaping is illegal. A none vape user could represent vape users by advocating for pro-vape laws.
1
4
u/WillingnessWise2643 Sep 11 '25
Nobody's arguing that?
That's obviously the case otherwise juveniles and animals will have no representation because they can't be politicians.
-30
u/OrangyOgre Sep 11 '25
But 65% voted them in.
8
16
12
u/SG_wormsbot Sep 11 '25
š RESET THE COUNTER!!! š
it has been 84 minutes since we've had an intellectual discussion about the 65%!
Last mention by: u/etulf:
65% voted for this
/r/singapore/comments/1ndv3fa/mfa_advises_singaporeans_to_defer_nonessential/ndkpknc/
10
5
7
2
u/yewteeko Sep 11 '25
Thanks for this. Hate the 65% rhetoric. After all we are one SG.
(Tho the latest IPS study found out that the older citizens are more likely to vote without reading up on policies and stuff, the younger voters are more likely to not vote so in conclusion our civic consciousness is still cmi, such rhetoric will only hurt us as a whole)
0
u/SG_wormsbot Sep 11 '25
š RESET THE COUNTER!!! š
it has been 2 hours since we've had an intellectual discussion about the 65%!
Last mention by: u/OrangyOgre:
But 65% voted them in.
/r/singapore/comments/1ndzrz6/oc_how_representative_is_parliament_a_look_at_its/ndkytx9/
-4
335
u/NuclearPastaIsAThing Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25
i got kinda bored watching the swearing-in last week so i made this for fun
notes: parliament's website hasn't listed the religions of MPs since GE2015 so the best i could do was note down who was holding which bibles during the swearing-in.
i might have missed some though, notably jamus lim is catholic but he didn't swear on a bible(edit: never mind, he's an agnostic now)the hardest part was actually finding which MPs belonged to which dialect groups. a lot of it was looking through facebook posts of MPs with clan associations, or checking the pronunciations of their names in different dialects. there was a lot of guesswork involved so don't take it too seriously lah