Korean Job Discussion Forums

[jvalmer]

Difference between Singapore, and places like the US and the UK is that the people in power don't go around threatening the opposition into silence. Debates are had, and even encouraged. In Singapore, any hint of a successful opposition is quickly dealt with trumped up charges, and sued to oblivion. Criticism of the PAP will put you in a lot of financial pain. The most recent examples of this happening is Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, in 2001, and Chee Soon Juan, in 2011.

The PAP is well-known for its practice of bringing lawsuits against opposition members in order to hinder them from running for election. A so called 'soft' repression. Perhaps with Lee's death things will change.

Don't get me wrong, Lee Kuan Yew was a great leader. And Singapore probably wouldn't be what it is today if it weren't for Lee. But he still acted like a dictator, and was a dictator.

[happyinhenan]

[jvalmer]

Dictatorship
1
: the office of dictator
2
: autocratic rule, control, or leadership
3
a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique
b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated
c : a despotic state

Singapore meets definition 3a/b

The PAP does hold absolute power in Singapore. Any criticism is dealt with. Sure there are the window dressing of elections, and your average Singaporean can vote for anyone without fear of repression. But any Singaporean will tell you it is a farce. In Singapore, the opposition has absolutely no chance of forming power. The PAP ensures it with their unique rules that tend to pop up for every 'election', or even changed to suit the PAP's needs.

Also, if an average Singaporean becomes a potentially formidable political opposition, or even a popular critic of the PAP. Then the group in power, the PAP, will eliminate the criticism/opponent. Usually by financially crippling them into silence, with heavy cooperation of the Singaporean 'legal' system.

Sure political opponents in the US, and other western nations, try to cripple their opposition. But they don't have the blatant cooperation of every branch of government to help them out. Which by the way is also controlled by the PAP.

[happyinhenan]

[pkjh]

No self respecting political scientist would seriously call Singapore a liberal democracy. Liberal being the key word here. Singapore is for sure has an authoritorian government. Not sure if I'd use the word democracy though. But I can see how it's debatable.

Singapore's so called 'elections' are more plebiscites for the PAP, than true elections. The PAP is lucky that most Singaporeans are happy enough as not to test out what might happen if they decided to vote the PAP out of power. It is very fortunate for the PAP that developing a city is much easier than developing a whole country.

Relatively easy making development equal among regions if it is the size of Singapore, so you don't get drastic differences, that might cause a large segment of the population to resent other regions.

Larger countries, like in South Korea's case, most likely would see it's regions experience drastic differences in economic development. Up until at least the 90's, the Jeolla region was decades behind some regions in development. So huge segments of the population became pretty critical of the government. While people in the Gyeongsang region saw way more development than Jeolla, and weren't as critical of the Park Jung-Hee government at the time. And, Jeolla's opposition was met with pretty severe crackdowns on the opposition.

So Lee Kuan Yew was never ever tested in possibly losing an already pretty much rigged 'elections'. Because if the PAP ever came close to being embarrassed at the polls, there should be little doubt in anyone's mind, that he would have shown his dictatorial side. All in the name of protecting Singapore's development of course.

On the surface Singapore is a democracy, as happyinhenan says. But I hope you aren't kidding yourself in believing that the PAP, in the past, would have accepted a loss. Lee Kuan Yew would have pretty much altered their 'democratic' system to something more authoritarian, or dictatorial.

Since Lee Kuan Yew has died, I'm not too sure what the PAP would do if they lost an 'election' in the future. But I do know Singapore's young want a lot of change.

[happyinhenan]

I agree with what you have written pkjh. Singaporean democracy wasn't a 'liberal' democracy and Lee never pretended it to be, he and his party indulged in corruption and criminality but that is in line with most 'democracies'.

The voting system in the UK with the 'first past the post' system is rigged - the UK media is bought and paid for on the whims of some very powerful unelected men, top politicians and their cohorts are protected from the law - the latest uncoverings include theft of public money (in the millions) and sexual abuse of children have been covered up and the perpetrators remain unpunished.

And the UK is meant to be one of the better 'democracies'

My argument is not that Lee was a nice guy or a model democrat or that he didn't have autocratic tendencies (like our favourite democrats - Tony Blair and George Bush) but that his country was as much of a democracy as Spain, Russia or the United States - what he wasn't was a dictator and calling him one is just lazy labelling of what he and Singapore was about.

It would have been far easier for him to have actually played the racial/ethnic card and kept Singapore as a two tier apartheid state that supported Ethnic Chinese interests but he realised that he could make his multi-cultural and ethnic country work and it is still a very liberal place in regards rights and freedoms of worship and rights of people regardless of skin colour, creed or race.

So, he did a lot wrong but he did a lot right too. I am the last person to compare Singapore to Norway or Finland but a dictator he was not.

The litmus test for me is, would I live in Singapore and bring up my family there, and I would - personally. I understand many wouldn't.

[aq8knyus]

If you compare Singapore to other countries, their economy looks impressive, but if you compare it to other great cities, not so much.

South Korea went from being a country that had been impoverished for centuries, brutally occupied and then devastated in a fratricidal war to a major global economy.

Singapore went from being a very important port in the early modern period, to being a very well governed vital trade hub of the largest empire in history and then a safe bet for FDI after independence.

It is quite clear that their economic success is not as awesome as some of its regional neighbours and the price they pay with their liberty has not really been worth it when you compare it to what Korea has gained.

[happyinhenan]

[On the other hand]

[On the other hand]

According to BBC, they sound like fairly general charges...

[Plain Meaning]

[happyinhenan]

[geldedgoat]

[bigverne]

Some of LKY's views you might not have read about in the mainstream media.

It is also rated by the World Bank as the world’s easiest country in which to do business, so at least getting rich is perfectly within everyone’s reach – provided he has the requisite ability, of course. Not everyone does, as Lee pointed out with brutal honesty:

"If I tell Singaporeans – we are all equal regardless of race, language, religion, culture. Then they will say,”Look, I’m doing poorly. You are responsible.” But I can show that from British times, certain groups have always done poorly, in mathematics and in science. But I’m not God, I can’t change you. But I can encourage you, give you extra help to make you do, say maybe, 20% better."

On evolution and human biodiversity:

"I started off believing all men were equal. I now know that’s the most unlikely thing ever to have been, because millions of years have passed over evolution, people have scattered across the face of this earth, been isolated from each other, developed independently, had different intermixtures between races, peoples, climates, soils… I didn’t start off with that knowledge. But by observation, reading, watching, arguing, asking, that is the conclusion I’ve come to."

Against equality:

"There are some flaws in the assumptions made for democracy. It is assumed that all men and women are equal or should be equal. Hence, one-man-one-vote. But is equality realistic? If it is not, to insist on equality must lead to regression."

On IQ and black people:

"The Bell curve is a fact of life. The blacks on average score 85 per cent on IQ and it is accurate, nothing to do with culture. The whites score on average 100. Asians score more… the Bell curve authors put it at least 10 points higher. These are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions and the results cannot follow."

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/lee-kuan-yews-flawed-utopia/

In our democracies, where politicians proclaim the importance of freedom of speech, saying any of these things is verboten.

[Plain Meaning]