Hurricane Katrina and Singapore

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sn00py
Dude, when you see why LKY did what he did, then you don't see him as a dictator. He is one of the worlds greatest leaders.

Dude, regardless of what he did, he was still a dictator.

He certainly wasn't one of the world's greatest leaders. He was just a decent mayor.

Originally posted by Sn00py
When I first heard that his son was now in power, I was suspicuious, but now that I know him better, I understand why he is where he is.

He's there because daddy put him there. So far it looks like he's not that stupid, but other than that, there's not much to praise him for.

Originally posted by Sn00py
Singapore is successful, it is progressing just fine.

Not really. Back in the early 90s, Singapore had a better economy than Hong Kong. Now, Hong Kong is way ahead in terms of GDP/capita while Singapore has stagnated.

Originally posted by Sn00py
The voting is not rigged; people just don't vote for what they don't know,

Well exactly. The government keeps the opposition muzzled. The government-controlled newspapers prevent the opposition from stating its view. The courts are used to muzzle the opposition. The opposition is denied licences to hold rallies. It's soft-touch oppression, but still oppression.

[Az]

He certainly wasn't one of the world's greatest leaders. He was just a decent mayor.

umm, what? if you judge his city's progress, he was helluva lot more than just a decent mayor.

And wrt dictatorship, founding fathers have that tendency.

You can't deny that he did a great job, even though I would NEVER EVER consider moving to singapore.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Az

He certainly wasn't one of the world's greatest leaders. He was just a decent mayor.

umm, what? if you judge his city's progress, he was helluva lot more than just a decent mayor.

And wrt dictatorship, founding fathers have that tendency.

You can't deny that he did a great job, even though I would NEVER EVER consider moving to singapore.

Sure he did some good things, but Singapore is just a city. It didn't face the problems that existed in many other countries. When the city became independent, it already had a strong business base, a developed middle and upper class, and educated people for its civil service. That automatically gave it a strong starting point.

At the same time, Singapore never had to deal with war, unlike many other countries in East Asia and around the world. Its infrastructure requirements were relatively low.

Hong Kong was able to outgrow Singapore without having the draconian measures that LKY used.

[Az]

Sure he did some good things, but Singapore is just a city. It didn't face the problems that existed in many other countries. When the city became independent, it already had a strong business base, a developed middle and upper class, and educated people for its civil service. That automatically gave it a strong starting point.

Many a leader have mismanaged assets. That's the test of a leader, the use of his human and natural resources. I don't think it's possible to start with nothing and get everything in larger systems. I see him taking a city with a solid potential, and using it to the max, and exeeding expectations. I wish I could say the same about our current leaders.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


While all those are true, Lee Kuan Yew is still a brilliant politician. For example, there are multiple parties yet the PAP still dominates every single election. I can't recall they were ever accused of rigging an election, either.

Rare praise from a citizen of (reddish) China for such an obviously capitalist running dog lackey.

Couldn't be admiration for his party's dominance of Singaporean politics through the clever abuse of the legal system and judiciary to bankrupt and neutralize and imprison politicians who try to exercise free speech, could it ?

J.B Jeyaretnam, one of Singapore's most famous opposition politicians, remains a bankrupt after losing a series of long-running legal battles against Lee, Goh and others.

Mr Lee is believed to be the most successful individual defamation litigant in history. In at least nine separate actions since the 1970s, he has been awarded more than $A3 million by the Singapore courts.

Amnesty International and other international organisations have accused Singapore's political elite of using defamation laws to undermine struggling opposition parties and crush free speech.

According to an AFP report, PAP leaders are suing the veteran politician for allegedly defaming them at an election rally on the eve of polling day at the 1997 polls.

Apart from Lee, the island's former prime minister, other leaders who have filed the defamation suits include Lee's son Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Defence Minister Tony Tan, and Education Minister Teo Chee Hean.

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw05/050315af.htm

Free speech- it's a decadent Western thang....

Singapore opposition leader jailed
By Angela Pagano

3 March 1999

Singapore opposition politician Chee Soon Juan has been jailed for 12 days after a court found him guilty on February 24 of speaking in public without a permit and he refused to pay the S$2,500 fine.

Chee has already served a seven-day sentence for refusing to pay a fine of $1,400 earlier this month for a similar offence. Under Singaporean law, a fine of more than $2,000 disqualifies anyone from participating in an election for five years.

His speech to crowds of about 600 included quotes from the Singapore constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech. He was charged under the Public Entertainment Act, which prohibits anyone from speaking in public without a permit. His SDP colleague Wong Hong Toy also faces a fine or jail for assisting Chee by adjusting a microphone and speaker.

How to weight the case in your favour:

Human Rights First was particularly concerned that Dr. Chee did not have legal representation today at the appeals hearing or when the case was initially heard last August in a closed door session before a judicial officer in chambers.

“Justice must not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done,” said John Spender, an Australian lawyer and Queen’s Counsel who observed the appeal on Human Rights First’s behalf. “It is deeply disturbing to see in court the two most powerful men in Singapore represented by a battery of legal talent, and Dr. Chee facing alone the task of representing himself and answering their arguments.”

Dr. Chee’s application to the High Court to have Stuart Littlemore, an Australian lawyer and Queen’s Counsel and specialist in defamation law, represent him in the case was rejected in January 2002 because of criticisms he made of the Singaporean judiciary over four years earlier. In April of 2002, the court also turned down Chee’s application to be represented by Martin Lee Q.C. of Hong Kong and Henric Nicholas Q.C. of Australia.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/2003_alerts/0212.htm

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Az
And wrt dictatorship, founding fathers have that tendency.

Our founding fathers set the bar rather high.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by joncha
Summary?

the one city in the US with the greatest reputation for laxness, corruption, and being third world like, one that had the poverty and hostility to social reform of the South, but without the Protestant religiosity of the South, located in perhaps the most corrupt state in the US (remember "vote for the crook - its important") happens to be far less disciplined, and more disorganized, than the most tight run, spit and polish, city state in the world.



In other news, its expected to snow this winter.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Case


Agreed.

Aside from Friedman's bizare praise of Singapore's quasi-facist government and it's corrupt bureaucracy and judiciary, its worth noting that Singapore's much touted civil defence program forms part of the government's policy of controling the public through hyping up external threats. As well as the civil defence force, Singapore also has a huge military modeled on the Israeli Defence Force (which includes universal conscription) .

whats wrong with the IDF as a model?

and historically there HAS been antichinese sentiment in both Indonesia and Malaysia - Singapore at various points was virtually under siege.

[Q Classic]

Yes, Singapore's quasi-fascist. It's Democracy with East Asian Characteristics.

Lee's government is no different, in that respect, from the successful governments of Taiwan and the leadership of former SKorean president PARK Chung-hee--strongman tactics with a semi-democratic face work for a populace used to authoritarian regimes.

:shrugs:

Maybe one day we'll have western-style democracy in East Asia. We're starting to see it in Japan and SKorea, but even there, it's still quite easternized--that is, the institutions are there, but they're just bolted onto the traditional structure.

[Q Classic]

Freedom and stupidity should not collide. America let that one go.

QFT.

Bread and circuses.

===

Incidentally, Singapore's main reason for seceding from Malaysia was the fact that unlike the rest of the country, Singapore was majority ethnically Chinese.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Singapore is a one party-dictatorship with rampant nepotism, and the judiciary is the lap dog for the party.

Wow, does that ever sound familiar...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Yes, Singapore's quasi-fascist. It's Democracy with East Asian Characteristics.

Lee's government is no different, in that respect, from the successful governments of Taiwan and the leadership of former SKorean president PARK Chung-hee--strongman tactics with a semi-democratic face work for a populace used to authoritarian regimes.

Bullocks. Taiwan and South Korea are both multiparty states where different parties have been in power.

Singapore is just a dictatorship.

[Q Classic]

Tingkai: You didn't read the rest of the comment.

Also, there is at least a facade of Democracy there--it is, however, just like Taiwan's and SKorea's government under the more authoritarian regimes, precisely that--just a facade.

Incidentally: In SKorea, the reason why they're multiparty states that have had different parties in power is because the parties work off the personality of the leader--once the leader retires/changes, there's a vast shift in the political environment as the party splits apart and is amalgamated into others, and/or becomes a new one.

(Besides, Taiwan and SKorea have both had 20 more years to work on their transformation.)

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Az
Many a leader have mismanaged assets. That's the test of a leader, the use of his human and natural resources.

Not really when it comes to city-states. Look at Hong Kong.

Hong Kong has never had a dictatorship, colonial rule was close, but still no dictatorship. Hong Kong has a free society, with a free press. And Hong Kong has done better than Singapore.

Taiwan and South Korea have achieved a hell of a lot more than Singapore, and those countries have had to maintain large standing armies.

LKY is extremely over rated.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Tingkai: You didn't read the rest of the comment. That's all I have to say about that.

(Besides, Taiwan and SKorea have both had 20 more years to work on their transformation.)

I read your comment. For South Korea, you were citing a government that existed 15 years ago. South Korea has a full democracy as does Taiwan.

Singapore has had the same amount of time to become democratic as Taiwan and South Korea. Yet, Singapore is still a one-party dictatorship.