Ahab_Ali t1_ixugbt0 wrote
They also cannot be a member of any political party on the date of their nomination for election. But that is because the President is largely a ceremonial office.
Singapore is a de facto dictatorship run by the People's Action Party and its Prime Minister. In the last 60+ years, there have only been three different Prime Ministers ruling Singapore.
Gemmabeta t1_ixuhcrv wrote
And the third prime minister is the son of the first one.
Advertising-Cautious t1_ixuhumh wrote
Political dynasties are so common around the world. Even Canada's current PM belongs to this class
Gemmabeta t1_ixui9ut wrote
But when the two of them have ruled for a combined total 49 years out of the office's 62-year history...
Skythewood t1_ixxed5a wrote
Skewed heavily by the 1st prime minister's 31 years.
Advertising-Cautious t1_ixuihrf wrote
And so?! They have been largely effective I would say. Of course they are not a perfect democracy, but to suggest that its a de facto dictatorship is too harsh
rockbridge13 t1_ixuxs20 wrote
It's a one party autocracy, it's not really a democracy. It's about as democratic as Russia is. If you read up on their election laws, it's free but very unfair.
pizzapiejaialai t1_ixv3pfm wrote
Japan has been ruled by one party for a vast majority of its post war history. These political structures are common in Asia.
Isares t1_ixv83gf wrote
So, why do you think the elections are unfair?
mediosteiner t1_ixuyg26 wrote
'It's about as democratic as Russia is.' - Ahahahahaahhaahahah
Ok sure please do tell me about the unfair laws.
thesleepybol t1_ixx5qov wrote
No point debating them my guy. Most non-Singaporeans can't wrap their head around the fact that:
-
The majority can, and may actually want, to vote in a particular government repeatedly for over 60 years straight.
-
Its possible for an incumbent government to function at a level consistently enough that they retain the majority's favour
-
Asian societies can have a political dynasty like the US or Canada without it being autocratic (which lowkey reeks of western superiority tbh since its generally acceptable in the West but never in Asia)
On the 3rd point, it would be a stretch to even call it a political dynasty anymore: the PM in waiting has no connection to the Lee family and none of the candidates for the top position in government back when they were fighting it out were related to them either.
In fact, none of the descendants of the Lee family are involved in governance: one of them even had to leave Singapore to get married to his gay partner because of the laws here and I don't think he came back. That doesn't seem very dictator-like when even the members of your alleged "ruling" family have to leave.
Not saying that Singapore doesn't have its downsides (and we do have a lot): our treatment of the LGBTQ community, our drug laws, laws on civil protest, and treatment of foreign workers are outright draconic, and the list goes on. But I do agree with you that the calling us a dictatorship or autocracy just reflects a complete misunderstanding of Singapore's political landscape.
cchiu23 t1_ixy4h97 wrote
This ignores the fact that
- Signapore has abysmal press freedoms
Yes its not impossible for a single party to keep people happy but it sure is easier if people are generally afraid to criticize you without reprisal
https://rsf.org/en/country/singapore
- The ruling party uses (read: abuses) the legal system to crush credible opponents
https://www.hrw.org/news/2008/10/17/singapore-end-efforts-silence-opposition
thesleepybol t1_ixyaxyi wrote
There's some nuance to be added to that I think, which applying a Western lens to Singapore politics results in the loss of.
On press freedoms:
- Singapore's press is heavily censored, I'll admit; but, I think this needs to be caveated in a few ways. First, its quite clear that censorship has little to do with political dissent and more to do with hate speech. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Singapore politics and policy, especially given the government's long-time stance on racial and religious harmony. (See Singapore's OB markers, their shift, and the calls for their narrowing vis-a-vis racial issues). Personally, there are other areas that I think deserve further narrowing of the respective OB markers for, but that's a discussion for another time. Regardless, the point is that its much more nuanced than simply saying people are afraid of criticising the government without reprisal. Unless of course, your point is that complete unfettered free speech, regardless of their truth is alright, which is the position in some countries.
- Second, its quite well-known that the role of the media in Singapore is very different from the Western idea of the media as the fourth estate: its been stated from as early as the 1990s that the media would only function as a source of information, without the accompanying political commentary that one sees in publications such as the NYT, Fox news, the Economist, etc. This was borne out of fear that media outlets can be manipulated to push conflicting or incendiary narratives. Considering how we see how the media can be manipulated to incite division or being used for political ends in the US, I'm inclined to say that our concerns were actually proven right. See the following for examples that were stated long before media manipulation in the US became a hot topic:
From paragraph 20 onwards: https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/2006100601.htm
​
On defamation suits:
- I think to say that the government abuses the legal system is quite uncalled for. To begin with, if someone makes false and defamatory statements about a person, or a government figure, are they to have no recourse to the courts? Defamation suits are very much a thing in most jurisdictions around the globe. I don't see why its highlighted as a problem in Singapore's case.
- Also, to say that the legal system is abused to silence opposition members glosses over the substance and effect of the allegations. For instance, in the recent defamation case launched by the current PM, he was accused of misappropriating public pension funds. Considering the serious political implications of this allegation, is the government expected to sit there and accept it, or should they be allowed to vindicate themselves in a court of law? If its the latter, that's how you get the unchecked spread of fake news. Again, I don't think that's a very viable option considering how its been shown (again by the US) that rational discourse responding to those spreading said allegation doesn't have any effect anymore.
- Also, Singapore doesn't even come anywhere close in the award for damages as compared to other jurisdictions. The UK, US and Australia regularly award sums from a million dollars or upwards. I think its a bit disingenuous to say that Singapore is especially harsh in defamation suits.
pizzapiejaialai t1_ixybvil wrote
The methodology that Reporters without borders use is inaccurate, unscientific by any measure, and should be treated with the same derision you'd treat a highly partisan news channel.
When you rank Singapore (where the regional HQ of BBC, CNN, Reuters, etc and no journalists have been killed) lower than the Congo ( where 6 journalists have been killed in recent years) then everyone ought to laugh at you.
zachzsg t1_ixv6wr3 wrote
The Castro dynasty
[deleted] t1_ixuxup7 wrote
[deleted]
pizzapiejaialai t1_ixv3a32 wrote
Hmm..... I distinctly remember a George H.W. and a George W.
pizzapiejaialai t1_ixv3cxj wrote
>de facto dictatorship
Nonsense.
elirisi t1_ixvc6if wrote
Hes not wrong though, since its inception, singapore was ran as an authoritarian regime with lee kuan yew as the de facto dictator. However, I doubt thats what he cares about or what you are objecting to.
But rather, here in the west, the word "dictator" has its own negative connotations and baggage that goes with it. After all, the majority of autocrats in the world extracts the nation's wealth to enrich their own pockets, rarely are the nation's citizens wellbeing a concern. Lee Kuan Yew on the other hand is a great exception to this rule, a servant to the nation, he had duty and responsibility and created one of the most prosperous nations with an almost incorruptible bureaucracy. Afterall for the individual, only duty can balance the power one wields.
And yet I see in this thread, some of the most asinine takes on this small nation. People who should take a step back and ask themselves why LKY was considered such a great man by leaders in both the free world and the third world, but no, instead they will keep typing in their basement, unfairly criticizing the respect to duty singaporean leaders have to their nation.
I would love to visit singapore one day and visit their "white house" where LKY once resided to pay my respects.
Isares t1_ixvevkk wrote
Visiting the istana is actually possible on certain open days (which is where the president stays, or at least uses for formal state occassions).
Visiting LKY's actual house is currently impossible, and even if it were possible, would go against his explicit wishes for it to not be turned into a heritage site.
elirisi t1_ixvf7qf wrote
Not inside, maybe just see the outside, cause isnt his daughter still living inside there?
But yeah ofc LKY will say that, it was more in line with his personality. Yet, its really not up to him, it has historical and cultural significance, his son did the right thing to preserve it for singaporeans.
useablelobster2 t1_ixvzgej wrote
From what I've heard it's somewhat similar to Atatürk. An autocrat who is using that autocratic power for what he thinks is genuinely best, rather than just enriching himself.
Atatürk was technically a dictator, one who led his country from caliphate to secular nation-state. More in the mold of Cincinnatus than Saddam.
uristmcderp t1_ixy6859 wrote
The main context people seem to be missing is that Singapore is a very small country with little diversity in demographics. Democracy in a country where everyone already agrees on all the important issues obviously looks very different from democracy in a country where parties have to take turns being in power. It'd be like if some Californians or Texans formed a city-state and formed their own country, except in a tiny land mass with like 10% of the population.
abczyx123 t1_ixyrxxm wrote
This is a crazy statement to make given that racial riots were a key driving force behind Singapore becoming independent in the first place.
a_latvian_potato t1_ixydx0z wrote
> The main context people seem to be missing is that Singapore is a very small country with little diversity in demographics.
If you don't know what you are talking about then just don't talk.
Singapore has three major races (Chinese, Malays and Indians) and is anything but homogenous in both race and culture. Still they manage to get along and create a functioning society that respects the diversity.
elirisi t1_ixy9j8c wrote
Hmmm I would agree with you if you were talking about a scandinavian country with a homogenous population or like japan or something.
But Singapore was definitely not a country with little diversity. Chinese is the majority but its malaysian and indian population were 15 percent and 7.5 percent respectively, by percentage there are more malays in singapore than african americans in the US.
One of the main motivations singapore chose to have english as their primary language was not only because its the international business language but rather because they needed an objective third party language. Each language carries its own historical and cultural baggage, if singapore had forced its population to speak chinese there would have been race riots everyday. Instead they chose english were it gave everyone in singapore a level playing field. Which makes this both an economic decision as well as a socio-political decision.
Another snippet is their housing plan which is heavily criticized in the west which forces every ethnicity to live with each other. Like every apartment complex building had to have 15 percent malay and 7.5 indian. Despite it being a bit heavy handed in my view, had they not do that though, there would just have entrenched ethnic enclaves as humans love to divide ourselves into tribal groups.
The founding of singapore is a very spectacular piece of history, I can talk about it all day but i will stop now.
MyPCsuckswantnewone t1_ixy0k9m wrote
Love how you always show up in posts about singapore to defend the govt
pizzapiejaialai t1_ixybh70 wrote
I'm not defending the govt. I'm defending my right as a Singaporean not to be dictated to by supremely confident, yet utterly incompetent Americans whose knowledge of my country amounts to having watched a couple of half baked YouTube videos.
What utter nonsense, "de facto dictatorship".
When we have had free and fair elections since independence?
When we have a thriving civil society (AWARE, TWC2, Oogachaga)?
When we have a civilian-governed military?
When you can go to any MPS and complain about the government's incompetency without fear of retribution?
When we are entering our third political leadership succession in peace, never having had a bullet fired in response?
Contrast that with Americans and their Jan 6th insurrection.
We should all be annoyed at fly over critics like OP.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments