Hurricane Katrina and Singapore

[Q Classic]

South Korea has only had a full democracy that even remotely resembles a western-style nation since 1997, 1992 if you're feeling generous. Even now, however, elections have more to do with personality and buying votes with favors (Pres. NOH won by appealing to the young by shamelessly whoring himself out to the youth's tendency towards a mild xenophobia, as well as offering the location of the new capital to the central Ch'ungch'ong provinces) than it does with actual policies.

Taiwan's only had it since the KMT's stranglehold was busted in the mid-90s. Both nations appeared in the 1950's, so the had 40 years to develop.


Now that I've done research, I've found that Singapore appeared in 1965, not the mid-1970s that I'd thought. (Mixed it up with Bangladesh. :duncecap: )

So... I retract the time argument.

[Q Classic]

I still stand by my statement, however, that Asian democracies tend to start off as just Western institutions bolted onto East Asian sensibilities and structures, which is why there's such a disconnect between how Western ones behave, and how the Eastern ones still tend to be more authoritarian than expected.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
South Korea has only had a full democracy that even remotely resembles a western-style nation since 1997, 1992 if you're feeling generous. Even now, however, elections have more to do with personality and buying votes with favors

In other words, they have a full-fleged Western democracy.

[Q Classic]

Oh, bleh.

I still believe a "Western-style" democracy is one that used to exist, as in... people voting on issues, taking them seriously, kinda like how I imagne that they still might be in Europe, not the Spring-show sound-bytte style one we have in the states.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

I still believe a "Western-style" democracy is one that used to exist, as in... people voting on issues.

People voting on issues. When did that ever happen.

[Q Classic]

A man can dream, can't he, Tingkai?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DaShi
You once claimed that a Taiwanese election was rigged based upon the accusations of the opposing party.

Is this the same recollection that couldn't recall that a Shanghai university had a speciallized history department?

Or is it the one that posted a quickly googled webpage exonerating the Dali Llama as evidence of his guilt?

On several occasions, I've noticed that you tend to believe that whatever you say or think is true despite lack of or contrary evidence. I see that line of thinking here a lot in China. This basing fact on what you can and can't recall is disturbingly, well, childlike in thought.

This comes from the person who claimed that he was refused admittance to medicine because he poked holes in the dean's theory of memory.



I am sure your memory is very good, and your recall is flawless.

[phoenixcager]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Other members of the old dictator's family have been appointed to high level positions throughout the government.

Supporting evidence? Other than the current prime minister (Lee Hsien Loong), who else is there?

[Az]

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.

I am not sure about this, but AFAIK, Hong Kong has had a far better starting point than Singapore, being more developed, and better located. Isn't that so?

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

They did achieve a lot, but I AFAIK, Singapore has a rather large standing army, as well, isn't it so? I am also not sure how are their achievements significantly larger.

LKY is extremely over rated.

Perhaps. My knowledge in the realm of SE asia is limited, so I am trying to get as much as possible.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Tingkai
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.

Colonial rule was virtually a dictatorship. The governer reported to nobody except the Prime Minister of the UK. The government was organised for repressing the locals. You need to look no further than the riots of 1967.

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

They are also much bigger and populous. FWIW, the governments of Taiwan, RoK and Singapore are very similar to each other.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by phoenixcager

Supporting evidence? Other than the current prime minister (Lee Hsien Loong), who else is there?

You mean other than Hsien Loong's wife being the head of the government investment fund, or sons becoming brigadier generals in the Singaporean military. But of course, they all got these positions on merit.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Az
I am not sure about this, but AFAIK, Hong Kong has had a far better starting point than Singapore, being more developed, and better located. Isn't that so?

Depends on which starting point is chosen. At the end of WWII, both cities are at about the same position.

Both are strategically located in terms of trade.

Originally posted by Az
They did achieve a lot, but I AFAIK, Singapore has a rather large standing army, as well, isn't it so? I am also not sure how are their achievements significantly larger.

Singapore spends half of what Taiwan spends on its military and a quarter of what South Korea spends.

My point is just that Singapore does not face any enemies, unlike South Korea and Taiwan.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Colonial rule was virtually a dictatorship. The governer reported to nobody except the Prime Minister of the UK. The government was organised for repressing the locals. You need to look no further than the riots of 1967.

I said that the colonial government was close to a dictatorship, but there some significant differences.

The colonial governor was kept in check by London and the British government was kept in check by the British voters and by courts in Hong Kong and Britain. The same cannot be said of Singapore.

After 1967, the colonial government was also aware that it needed to keep the local population happy, or risk more riots. This led to more input into the HK government through the Exco and legco. The British had the final say, but it was not completely arbitrary and local people had a say. This is one of the reasons Hong Kong has been successful. As well, the development of Chinese civil servants also gave locals more of a voice. By no means was it democratic, any more than it is now, but it was also not a dictatorship.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
They are also much bigger and populous. FWIW, the governments of Taiwan, RoK and Singapore are very similar to each other.

Taiwan and South Korea have multiparty democracy. Neither country is a one-party state. The same cannot be said of Singapore.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Tingkai


My point is just that Singapore does not face any enemies, unlike South Korea and Taiwan.

Unless you count the non-ethnic Chinese states of Indonesia and Malaysia which border it- Singapore separated from Malaysia in 1965, because of Malay fears of Singaporean domination, and is still vulnerable through its water supply:

The Board aims to ensure sustainable water supply for Singapore by diversifying supply sources, and managing demand. To optimise Singapore's water supply, about half of Singapore's total land area is set aside as water catchment to harness water supply. The Board also imports water from neighbouring Johor, Malaysia to supplement the local water resources. These two sources form Singapore's first two National Taps.

http://www.pub.gov.sg/about_us/ProfileOverviewofDrainage.php

Indonesia isn't entirely happy about Singapore engrossing itself at the cost of Indonesian sand and coral:

Australian
September 6, 2002
SINGAPORE

By: Eric Ellis

YOU can see them as your flight descends into Singapore's Changi airport -- dozens of massive sand dredgers lying inactive at anchor in Singapore harbour.
Owned by companies from Belgium, The Netherlands, Russia and South Korea, the dredgers have stopped churning the Indonesian seabed around Singapore because of a nasty dispute with Jakarta.

It's been called the Sand War and parties in Jakarta, Singapore and various European capitals are seeking to draw a line on it lest it career out of hand.


Sand dredging is big business, a A$10 billion global market, and tiny Singapore is the world's most active market as it seeks to make itself bigger. Singapore is also struggling out of a recession and would like to keep tourist dollars inside the republic, instead of leaking to the neighbouring Riau archipelago, where the beaches and resorts are better.

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020906au.htm

[Tingkai]

As far as I know, Malaysia has never invaded or threatened to invade Singapore, and neither has Indonesia.

The three countries have their disputes, but it is far different from mainland China - Taiwan and North and South Korea where wars have been fought.