Singapore follows the British Westminister parliamentary system, which places no term limit on the Prime Minister. That is true for most other countries that follows the same system, like Australia and Canada. None of those countries are run by nepotistic dynasties. I don't think the lack of a term limit necessarily leads to more corruption.
My quote was simply to point out the absurdity of getting yourself elected the head of a country - one that prides itself on being free from corruption - just so you can get rich from it. Both Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kwuan Yew are very capable people who no doubt would be far richer had they applied themselves to the private sector rather than public.
"My quote was simply to point out the absurdity of getting yourself elected the head of a country - one that prides itself on being free from corruption - just so you can get rich from it. Both Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kwuan Yew are very capable people who no doubt would be far richer had they applied themselves to the private sector rather than public."
That's not absurd at all. Our politicians in U.S. do it all the time while pretending the campaign contributions are just companies and individuals supporting our political system. Many private sector people have also gone into politics or government positions for the image and power. Running an entire country has historically attracted more tyrants than true, humble servants of their citizens.
In this case, it's even more obvious something is up. The country's turn-around started with a revolution of sorts by dissenters who took control of the government. It's turned into an economic powerhouse with the culture put in place but mostly in terms of cheap labor, etc. The problem is that the party cemented this into place by taking control of the media, filling schools with propaganda, blocking rights to dissent, and jailing/torturing dissenters that might cause next revolution (or even evolution).
A leader that uses legal and police might to force everything in one permanent direction where the many benefit a rich and powerful few, some local & some foreign, is almost by definition at tyrant. He's highly likely to be on a power trip. Otherwise, he should pass laws protecting speech and press freedom with a strong, independent press allowed. Keep other stuff the same for now but let new ideas percolate into system to improve it.
So, Loong and Yew are more likely to be tyrants oppressing a people than innovators continuing to protect them. No term limit is a natural extension of that. :)
This is possibly one of the funniest things I've read on the Internet today.
You're absolutely right. By the sound of it they could be tyrants on power trips. On the other hand I think the world would be a much better place if all tyrants on power trips lifted their countries out poverty, creating one of the most educated, cosmopolitan and diverse populations in the world, all within the space of two generations.
"On the other hand I think the world would be a much better place if all tyrants on power trips lifted their countries out poverty, creating one of the most educated, cosmopolitan and diverse populations in the world, all within the space of two generations."
I think more tyrants should do that. Yet again, you people could use qualifiers because the propaganda seeps through.
" countries out poverty"
Many are still in poverty working long hours making almost nothing with little to show. At least the business owners and foreign investors are making money on their efforts. It's not Africa poverty but in America we still call it poverty. Such people are measured to live shorter, less healthy, and less happy lives.
"most educated"
How much education do you get in history and critical thinking? Do they teach you to spot logical flaws and propaganda like our colleges often do? Do you apply that to the media and governments claims? Did you learn about places in the world that have good amount of safety and prosperity without draconian restrictions on their people? Did you actively debate among yourselves in government class every hot, political issue and other system of government to determine where you wanted your country to be in 10-20 years?
Or did they just teach you language, science, math, tech, some literature, and how to apply those for your government or commercial employers? I'm genuinely curious as oppressive regimes limit education to focus on harmless stuff to limit dissent and I have little information on Singaporean education.
"diverse populations "
Diverse in terms of beliefs, politics, and economic strategies? Or just ethnically? Our strengths in the U.S. come from the former. The latter is insignificant as it doesn't directly contribute to anything. Our goal there is just reducing discrimination in hiring or justice. Real issues here.
"all within the space of two generations."
Singaporean's unique focus, work ethic, and belief in their country are things I've always given them credit for. Admirable and a great turn-around. Now, they're potential liabilities that are being used by elites in government and industry to exploit them. Time to learn new character traits and ideas for the nation to see where the great ones will take it next. :)
This is... I can't even. The lack of quantifiers is because I'm on a phone, and your claims are extreme. I'm not going to dignify all of them with a respond - a lot of the claims are hyperbolical and ridiculous.
> How much education do you get in history and critical thinking? Do they teach you to spot logical flaws and propaganda like our colleges often do? Do you apply that to the media and governments claims?
Yes. Yes to all of the questions you asked. Yes we do learn history and critical thinking in school. I know Operation Coldstore and Operation Spectrum. I know of the PAP's sordid history with the Barisan Sosialis. I don't trust the Straits Times, and frequently look for alternative viewpoints online. There is a large and vibrant blogging scene here, and netizens are more frequently than not critical of the government.
> Did you learn about places in the world that have good amount of safety and prosperity without draconian restrictions on their people?
Yes, and there are not many. People in the US gives up more freedom than they think, and its history is far from being clean. The UK has libel laws that are not entirely unlike Singapore's, just to pick a few broad examples.
Singapore is not without flaws - gay rights, a misguided focus on the nuclear family and an almost cult-like focus on drugs as social vice. The lack of representation in politics, and increasingly xenophobic towards immigration. The poor work-life balance, income inequality, and lack of support for the poorest. There's a lot of things that are wrong with Singapore - you don't have to make shit up.
From one Singaporean to another, thanks for doing the good work.
I'd like to say that, by and large, most Singaporeans are concerned with economic and comfort issues. Cost of living, high home prices, wages depressed by foreign labour. These are the main issues that drive election results.
After the 60% outcome in the 2011 election, the ruling party was shocked into a social-welfare response that resulted in a landslide 70% outcome in the 2015 elections. Opposition politicians, stung by this rejection, decried Singaporeans' general lack of interest in their hobby-horse topics.
But the majority of the population really does think things have gotten better. You could say this is the "tyranny of the majority", because they're not interested in many of the topics that concern the minority. (Furthermore, the ruling party moved in the direction of opposition proposals for greater social welfare, giving the opposition less ground to stand on.)
There's a great breadth of alternative viewpoints online: activists, anti-PAP people, and so forth. The minority view here is alive and well, even getting to the point of rabid exaggeration (e.g. Roy Ngerng).
Ultimately, the objections to the Singapore system lie mostly in differences in principles. Is the current tradeoff of somewhat limited rights and good governance acceptable? To a large majority, it is. Is there a risk of a future government becoming abusive? Yes, but it's still remote in most Singaporeans' minds.
I hope it's clear that, while Singaporeans complain about governmental mismanagement, they're mostly not asking for additional freedoms (like what some posters might think). They're asking for better governance and greater fairness in treatment.
edit: In response to @nickpsecurity, I'd say the reason most Singaporeans don't complain publicly is, we really don't think the problems are as big as others think. @mediumdeviation and @visakanv here are clearly liberal in outlook, but they view the current ruling party positively on the whole. Their views really do reflect the majority of the younger, more educated/travelled crowd in Singapore (which isn't the only group that matters, of course).
"In response to @nickpsecurity, I'd say the reason most Singaporeans don't complain publicly is, we really don't think the problems are as big as others think. "
I'm considering that. Just gotta get more data and it's hard to come by if it's critical as I said to mediumdeviation. Reason I'm considering it already is this...
"they're mostly not asking for additional freedoms (like what some posters might think). They're asking for better governance and greater fairness in treatment."
You're the second one to tell me that. The other explained that Singaporean culture inherently trusted the government more seeing them as a caretaker of sorts. So, the question is how the trusted government should provide for them. That they weren't as worried about the long-term consequences of putting that much trust and power into the government as they were its immediate actions.
> "they're mostly not asking for additional freedoms (like what some posters might think). They're asking for better governance and greater fairness in treatment."
> You're the second one to tell me that. The other explained that Singaporean culture inherently trusted the government more seeing them as a caretaker of sorts. So, the question is how the trusted government should provide for them. That they weren't as worried about the long-term consequences of putting that much trust and power into the government as they were its immediate actions.
Hmm, yes. You could compare it to the old mandarin system. Top scholars are fast-tracked into civil service leadership, where they play increasingly large roles (and compete with each other), and from among them and a few outstanding outsiders, the party leadership selects its new generation. Policies and directions are debated within that leadership, with an eye to Singapore's future success.
This system was established early on by the PAP and maybe we Singaporeans don't expect it to produce abusive leaders in the future, since it hasn't so far (barring perhaps LKY, who's rightly controversial, but also set up the whole system).
When the ruling party does a bad job, voters tell it so by voting for the opposition, and the party addresses the issues - that's the ongoing dynamic, whether you label them "rulers" or "caretakers".
I think you can summarise how many Singaporeans think this way:
1. The PAP did a good job despite LKY's authoritarian approach and excesses in the earlier decades.
2. The current PAP leadership is quite acceptable and not oppressive (the top ministers like Tharman and even PM Lee can quite fairly be called excellent or visionary).
3. As long as the PAP continues to a) address criticisms from the populace, and b) deliver good governance and societal comfort, there's not much fear of a return to tight controls and clamping down on freedoms in the long term.
4. The strength of alternative viewpoints has grown steadily and doesn't look endangered; online criticism feeds into the main newspaper, where virtually all big issues show up in the end. The genie is out of the bottle, in that regard. Plus, youngsters are getting more liberal by the year, and gradually they'll become the ones running government and making up the PAP.
That's the summary of the view of one Singaporean among many. We'll see how long this "one-party experiment" will last.
"The lack of quantifiers is because I'm on a phone, and your claims are extreme. I'm not going to dignify all of them with a respond - a lot of the claims are hyperbolical and ridiculous."
Lol. First genuine, emotional response I've gotten out of one of you on a public site in years. Extreme? I've already made extreme claims elsewhere that were backed up by Singaporean eyewitnesses. I'm leaving extreme stuff out here. No, these are basic questions that I periodically ask but get no answers to. They're important given all the negative claims I've read and how corrupt police states focus on these categories. It's a canary that sounds the alarm. So, let's look at this.
re history
It's good you know about these things although they still won't release records on Coldstore, etc on your end. Gotta wonder what they'll say & how that will paint the regime. I'm sure you have an idea, though. Good to know the citizens are blogging different sides of things, some of which I read. Gotta ask how many times have movements against the regime in those blogging circles led to (a) a change of leadership or (b) a change of key laws leadership pushed? Does this happen a few times a year? Once a year? One a few years? It's a measure of whether your blogging and such is as effective as alternative press with individual freedoms to act on that.
"People in the US gives up more freedom than they think, and its history is far from being clean. The UK has libel laws that are not entirely unlike Singapore's, just to pick a few broad examples."
You actually picked bad examples. Post-9/11, U.S. gave up a lot of freedom Singapore-style in exchange for safety. Except fake safety in U.S. case given the threat. A small percentage run into police-state style behavior. Most of us have so much freedom that we can publicly mock or slander Presidents without harm on major news. Colbert did it to President in person. We regularly get evidence against us tossed out if it's obtained illegally. And so on.
Britain, I'll say simply, is a police state the U.S. is trying to imitate. So, your comparison showing a police state (Singapore) to be good was another police state and a free country trying to be one. Try active democracy like Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, or Switzerland. Low violence, despite two having guns for sure, with government providing for their people, good living standards, and them having plenty freedom. They're a better comparison since their people's culture is to actually give a shit about each other & the country like you Singaporeans do and U.S./U.K. don't (sighs). They just do it as democracies.
"Singapore is not without flaws"
BOOM! Great paragraph! Just what I was looking for. Any critique of Singapore results in half a dozen to dozens of nearly identical claims about how safe and great it is without details or references. Then, stuff like "everyone else, like America, is corrupt and gets you murdered" ignoring any details to the contrary. All of them say the same things like a group refrain. That worries me by itself.
Anyway, I have to fight to get honest admissions of problems from Singaporeans for whatever reason. Yes, that paragraph covers most of what I've heard in private conversations from Singaporeans. Bravo! Impressed with your honesty. I'll add that to my list which also has your country's good traits that you all are happy to talk about. It's just this other stuff is hard to get and I prefer to hear the problems directly from Singaporeans. I appreciate your help in getting the big picture more clearly in my head. Extra pieces that I'll try to corroborate with others.
People keep on forgetting about scale. Places like Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, are able to prosper despite being autocratic or semi-autocratic because they're cities. Similarly, New York has had relatively authoritarian mayors (by U.S. standards) in the past and improved because of it. But it's a far cry to say that such a national (or even major provincial) ruler would have the same sort of results. And the price to pay would be tyranny.
My quote was simply to point out the absurdity of getting yourself elected the head of a country - one that prides itself on being free from corruption - just so you can get rich from it. Both Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kwuan Yew are very capable people who no doubt would be far richer had they applied themselves to the private sector rather than public.