|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
It would have been easy for him to set up a similar state favouring ethnic Chinese but what he did instead was realised that 'Multi-Culturalism' was the strength of the place and that would take Singapore to greatness which is what he did.
I'm not so sure that LKY saw multiculturalism as a 'strength' but rather as a reality to dealt with, as this quote shows:
"Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people's position. In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
happyinhenan
Joined: 01 Feb 2015
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
Smaller land area to develop, infrastructure costs would be a fraction of Korea's. |
Whilst forgetting about Uncle Sam as a sugar daddy footing the bill.
| Quote: |
| Also, less regional issues to impede development. |
Strange how Korea with more land, more natural resources and more people is seen to be at a disadvantage. Most people would see that the other way round. If it was that easy, why not just turn Newfoundland into a superstate? Gibraltar? The Faroe Islands?
| Quote: |
| However, getting the needed industries to come to invest in a city-state would take a lot convincing to do. Although it seem the ones in the middle east have little issues with that. But I guess they are attracted by the easy oil dollars. |
No-one has compared Korea to Singapore apart from you - I don't know why you have brought Korea into this but seeing as you have, there are very few countries on the planet that have had the billions of dollars in investment from Uncle Sam that the Koreans have - no wonder they 'industrialized' so quickly.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happyinhenan
Joined: 01 Feb 2015
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
It would have been easy for him to set up a similar state favouring ethnic Chinese but what he did instead was realised that 'Multi-Culturalism' was the strength of the place and that would take Singapore to greatness which is what he did.
I'm not so sure that LKY saw multiculturalism as a 'strength' but rather as a reality to dealt with, as this quote shows:
"Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people's position. In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that..." |
There you go, he was a realist and realised that pandering to his people (who held the majority at that time and still do) wasn't going to take his country forward, only to retard progress. Not too many would have took his position though so for that, he deserves lots of kudos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| happyinhenan wrote: |
| jvalmer wrote: |
| However, getting the needed industries to come to invest in a city-state would take a lot convincing to do. Although it seem the ones in the middle east have little issues with that. But I guess they are attracted by the easy oil dollars. |
No-one has compared Korea to Singapore apart from you - I don't know why you have brought Korea into this but seeing as you have, there are very few countries on the planet that have had the billions of dollars in investment from Uncle Sam that the Koreans have - no wonder they 'industrialized' so quickly. |
I think I initially mentioned Korea as a successful case of leadership by a dictator. Didn't start comparing them, until you started to.
Anyways yes, Uncle Sam helped Korea a lot. US dollars also have poured into other countries that have just squandered it away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happyinhenan
Joined: 01 Feb 2015
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
I think I initially mentioned Korea as a successful case of leadership by a dictator. |
Why bring that up? Lee Kwan Yew wasn't a dictator. Strange comparison.
I would call it an authoritarian democracy - America has just one more electable party than the Singaporeans and aren't they the bastion of political freedom?
| Quote: |
| Didn't start comparing them, until you started to. |
The 'gamble' payed off in Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan, for whatever reason. And you can argue that Hong Kong, and Japan were/are quasi-dictatorships. Although Park Jung-Hee wasn't alive to see the fruits of his policies. However, I can't think of any other dictators outside of the mentioned countries that have been economic successes.
| Quote: |
| Anyways yes, Uncle Sam helped Korea a lot. US dollars also have poured into other countries that have just squandered it away. |
You know who didn't get aid from Uncle Sam - Singapore - it overtook South Korea very quickly, in 1965, it was a third rate outpost of the British Empire but through one mans vision - it became a regional powerhouse.
For some reason, you think that Singapores disadvantages are its advantages and I still don't know what you overall point is. That we should give Chung Park Hee equal kudos on a thread about the death of the founding father of Singapore?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| happyinhenan wrote: |
| Lee Kwan Yew wasn't a dictator. |
Not a dictator? Come on man, he was very much a dictator, all be it a pretty good one. He may not have killed, but he arrested, harassed, and bankrupted opposition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happyinhenan
Joined: 01 Feb 2015
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
| happyinhenan wrote: |
| Lee Kwan Yew wasn't a dictator. |
Not a dictator? Come on man, he was very much a dictator, all be it a pretty good one. He may not have killed, but he arrested, harassed, and bankrupted opposition. |
He wasn't.
Park Chung Hee was a dictator - an electoral college of 3000 of his buddies voted the bastard in at all times.
In Singapore - there were actually eight political parties up against the PAP - because the other parties didn't get anywhere doesn't mean it is a dictatorship.
In the UK, the tories would stand no chance in Wigan - that seat is a red, solid labour seat - does that mean that democracy is not in action in Wigan because it is a safe labour seat and the tories have no chance? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| happyinhenan wrote: |
| jvalmer wrote: |
| happyinhenan wrote: |
| Lee Kwan Yew wasn't a dictator. |
Not a dictator? Come on man, he was very much a dictator, all be it a pretty good one. He may not have killed, but he arrested, harassed, and bankrupted opposition. |
He wasn't.
Park Chung Hee was a dictator - an electoral college of 3000 of his buddies voted the bastard in at all times.
In Singapore - there were actually eight political parties up against the PAP - because the other parties didn't get anywhere doesn't mean it is a dictatorship.
In the UK, the tories would stand no chance in Wigan - that seat is a red, solid labour seat - does that mean that democracy is not in action in Wigan because it is a safe labour seat and the tories have no chance? |
Ah look up guys like Lim Chin Siong, Chee Soon Juan, and Tang Liang Hong.
Lee essentially neutered opposition by accusing any potential political threats of being communists, or fraud, or throwing them in jail, or outright bankrupting them. Political opposition had no chance at all under Lee. And he basically appointed his son as prime minister. On top of that, Singapore's press freedom is abysmal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happyinhenan
Joined: 01 Feb 2015
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
Ah look up guys like Lim Chin Siong, Chee Soon Juan, and Tang Liang Hong.
Lee essentially neutered opposition by accusing any potential political threats of being communists, or fraud, or throwing them in jail, or outright bankrupting them. Political opposition had no chance at all under Lee. On top of that, Singapore's press freedom is abysmal. |
Who saying he wasn't authoritarian? Who saying he didn't bend the rules? The Bushes committed and got away with great larceny in Florida in 2000? Is America not a democracy anymore? (With that and the 'Patriot Act').
Politicians get up to no good, he is no better nor worse than any of the lot who are in charge of our countries.
Take Harry Reid, he has been senator of Nevada for nearly 30 years, he is as corrupt as *beep* - is Nevada a dictatorship now?
If Singapore was a dictatorship, it wouldn't have had eight running parties in contention that gathered something 100000 votes between them. There would have been an electoral college of 3000 of his chums to keep him voted in.
No one is saying he was a nice guy, he was a politician who broke away from a bigger state and brought it up from its bootstraps to something like prosperity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Singapore under Lee was a dictatorship, and still is. Singaporeans practically have no choice, because any legitimate opposition will be put in financial ruin. In this case, a dictatorship has worked and brought prosperity to most of its people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happyinhenan
Joined: 01 Feb 2015
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| [quote="jvalmer"]Singapore under Lee was a dictatorship, and still is. |
It wasn't and it isn't.
There were and are legal political parties to oppose the PAP and people vote for them and their votes are cast and recorded for prosperity.
The problem with your argument is that you don't seem to recognise democracy as flawed. The Singapore model might not be your idea of democracy but the US model isn't mine - nor is the British, Australia, NZ or Canadian come to think of it.
People in Singapore have the vote and exercised their right to vote and they voted mostly for the PAP despite the other various options at hand - now, if you can find an election where that didn't happen then show me.
| Quote: |
| Singaporeans practically have no choice, because any legitimate opposition will be put in financial ruin. In this case, a dictatorship has worked and brought prosperity to most of its people. |
Let's take an example during the Lee years of a general election and we will plump for... 1976.
People's Action Party 590,169
Workers' Party 91,966
Singapore United Front 56,191
Barisan Sosialis 25,411
United People's Front 14,233
Singapore Malay National Organisation 9,230
Singapore Justice Party 5,199
Independents 4,173
Invalid/blank votes 18,558
300000 Singaporeans voted against the PAP - that isn't 'lack of choice' it looks like democracy in action to me - the PAP win in Singapore like the Republicans win in Utah but stand no chance in Hawaii. You argue that it is a 'city state' but, in your opinion, because city state poilitics prevail there - its not democracy. It is very much democracy - it might not be your ideal idea of it but christ knows where that exists.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| happyinhenan wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Singaporeans practically have no choice, because any legitimate opposition will be put in financial ruin. In this case, a dictatorship has worked and brought prosperity to most of its people. |
Let's take an example during the Lee years of a general election and we will plump for... 1976.
People's Action Party 590,169
Workers' Party 91,966
Singapore United Front 56,191
Barisan Sosialis 25,411
United People's Front 14,233
Singapore Malay National Organisation 9,230
Singapore Justice Party 5,199
Independents 4,173
Invalid/blank votes 18,558
300000 Singaporeans voted against the PAP - that isn't 'lack of choice' it looks like democracy in action to me - the PAP win in Singapore like the Republicans win in Utah but stand no chance in Hawaii. You argue that it is a 'city state' but, in your opinion, because city state poilitics prevail there - its not democracy. It is very much democracy - it might not be your ideal idea of it but christ knows where that exists. |
I can post similar garbage Korean election numbers in that 1960-1985 period, and claim South Korea was a democracy during that era. In matter in fact, Kim Dae-Jung almost beat Park in the 1971 elections.
But Park responded by trying to assassinate Kim DJ. Wait, I guess Korea was a democracy, because they had a showboat election. Park wasn't a nice guy like Lee Kuan Yew. I guess both were democracies during that era.
Let's get real here, Singapore was a dictatorship, and still is. Korea was a dictatorship, but no longer is.
But I see you can't be convinced. Maybe you should try getting your Singaporean citizenship, join the opposition, and try criticizing the Lee Kuan Yew family in Singapore. Wonder how long it would take before you're brought up on trumped up charges, and bankrupted by a lengthy legal system that is too afraid to upset key ruling people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happyinhenan
Joined: 01 Feb 2015
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
I can post similar garbage Korean election numbers in that 1960-1985 period, and claim South Korea was a democracy during that era. In matter in fact, Kim Dae-Jung almost beat Park in the 1971 elections. |
All a democracy is, is where public turnout guarantees the victors of elections based on 'one man, one vote' it matters not if you like it or not or the way it is done, that is all democracy is - Park Chung Hee got rid of democracy for an electoral college - he was actually a dictator - Lee did nothing of the sort so to compare the two as the same is wrong.
| Quote: |
| But Park responded by trying to assassinate Kim DJ. Wait, I guess Korea was a democracy, because they had a showboat election. Park wasn't a nice guy like Lee Kuan Yew. I guess both were democracies during that era. |
Yeah, that is right, again - you seem to confuse 'democracy' with stringent moral values in politics, now, I don't know where that exists, probably Finland - but because politics is a skewed, dirty business full of dishonest men - doesn't make it any less of a democracy.
| Quote: |
| Let's get real here, Singapore was a dictatorship, and still is. |
You are wrong, it has been proven that it isn't a 'dictatorship' the only thing you have to offer is 'It is a dictatorship because I say it is' that doesn't make it so.
| Quote: |
| Korea was a dictatorship, but no longer is. |
Why, because it has 'one person, one vote' that is all democracy boils down to. Nothing more, nothing less.
| Quote: |
| But I see you can't be convinced. |
You seem the one who can't be convinced, I have given you evidence against your bullshit claims that 'Singaporeans were too scared to vote against the PAP' that has never been the case and you have gone silent on that one - I don't blame ya!
| Quote: |
| Maybe you should try getting your Singaporean citizenship, join the opposition, and try criticizing the Lee Kuan Yew family in Singapore. |
Why should I? I think the Lee family are great, if I get Singaporean citizenship, let them keep on truckin' I say.
| Quote: |
| Wonder how long it would take before you're brought up on trumped up charges, and bankrupted by a lengthy legal system that is too afraid to upset key ruling people. |
What is the difference between that and 'The Patriot Act'?
You think free speech exists anywhere, where you can say anything you want?
Don't be so naive.
If you want that and that is important to you - Finland is a nine hour flight away, good luck for getting citizenship there, a lot harder than it would be to get a Singapore passport.
Let me explain to you again - all democracies - ours included, have a roughshod view on human rights and 'freedoms of speech' but Singapore, the last time I looked, had free opposition parties and people voting for them, and that makes them a democracy - because you don't like their version of democracy or that the results of their elections go one way - doesn't make it a dictatorship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| happyinhenan wrote: |
| You seem the one who can't be convinced, I have given you evidence against your bullshit claims that 'Singaporeans were too scared to vote against the PAP' that has never been the case and you have gone silent on that one - I don't blame ya! |
I never said Singaporeans were afraid to vote for the PAP. The fact is that any potentially strong opposition figure is quickly 'dealt' with in Lee Kuan-Yew's unique way of trumped up charges, and financial ruin. Pretty much considered dictator by the vast majority of people, including Singaporeans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happyinhenan
Joined: 01 Feb 2015
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
I never said Singaporeans were afraid to vote for the PAP. The fact is that any potentially strong opposition figure is quickly 'dealt' with in Lee Kuan-Yew's unique way of trumped up charges, and financial ruin. |
Understood, you have yet to explain how it isn't a democracy?
I understand that underhanded criminality goes on - it does in the United States, it does in Spain, Italy, Russia - all democracies, all flawed.
Again - the only thing for a state to be qualified as a 'democracy' is for the citizen to have a say in the political system. That is it.
Singaporeans have a democratic say in the voting process - thus it is a democracy.
Now, if your argument is one of 'I don't like Singapore's democracy' then that is another argument entirely. But don't brush it under as a dictatorship the same as Park Chung Hee between 1973-80 because you are being intellectually lazy or dishonest - or both.
| Quote: |
| Pretty much considered dictator by the vast majority of people, including Singaporeans. |
What is the difference between the reign of Lee and the reign of Harry Reid?
As you said yourself - Singapore is a city state - it is no massive surprise that a particular party holds power for a considerable length of time under one man - that happens in a lot of democracies around the world - states and cities vote a certain way.
Utah will always vote republican
Hawaii will always be a democratic state
Sunderland and Glasgow in the UK will always vote labour
Harry Reid has led the democrats in Nevada for 28 years - it isn't a dictatorship because the Republicans have no chance of getting in.
You need to align your meaning of 'dictatorship' to its rightful sentiments instead of going on emotional rants to make a point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
