Singaporean dictator Lee Kuan Yew died

I'm not sure to what extent LKY was a dictator. I don't think long time in office is enough, although it may be indicative. South Africa has been ruled by the same party for over twenty years - is it a dictatorship? It has authoritarian aspects that distinguish it from Western Europe, but ultimately most voters probably really did want the ANC in power all that time. Sweden was ruled by one party for decades, too.

As far as I understand it, in Singapore it is perfectly legal to form an opposition party, run candidates, state a manifesto, and vote for an opposition party, in practice as well as in form.

The libel laws do give the incumbent government an unfair position (it isn't illegal to libel someone who isn't in the government), but that only couldn't save it from defeat if it adopted a programme that was simply very undesirable to most people. In that case, the opposition can just ignore the actions of the government and win by stating its own programme. Singapore's laws could explain one party winning a series of knife-edge elections but not consistent overwhelming dominance of one party.

While i believe he has helped transform Singapore into one of the worlds most developed countries, i do feel that any real opposition is quashed. Singapore regulates freedom of speech with an iron fist, often quashing dissidents , stopping protests, not allowing freedom of speech etc.

If i lived there, i would be terrified to criticize the dictatorship.

Quite a respected politician in his day.

He's done a lot of good for Singapore over the years to make it the success story It is today

Lee Kuan Yew whilst he had his very tough and harsh ideas he still helped move Singapore into a financial powerhouse.. He transformed the nation.

Not sure if it's fair to call him a dictator. After all, he didn't go around arbitrarily arresting his political opponents; instead, he sued them for libel. And, though he could certainly afford the best lawyers to argue his case, he never resorted to bribing or threatening the court.

I'm not sure to what extent LKY was a dictator. I don't think long time in office is enough, although it may be indicative. South Africa has been ruled by the same party for over twenty years - is it a dictatorship? It has authoritarian aspects that distinguish it from Western Europe, but ultimately most voters probably really did want the ANC in power all that time. Sweden was ruled by one party for decades, too.

As far as I understand it, in Singapore it is perfectly legal to form an opposition party, run candidates, state a manifesto, and vote for an opposition party, in practice as well as in form.

The libel laws couldn't save the government from defeat if it adopted a programme that was simply very undesirable to most people. In that case, the opposition can just ignore the actions of the government and win by stating its own programme. Singapore's laws could explain one party winning a series of knife-edge elections but not consistent overwhelming dominance of one party.

While i believe he has helped transform Singapore into one of the worlds most developed countries, i do feel that any real opposition is quashed. Singapore regulates freedom of speech with an iron fist, often quashing dissidents , stopping protests, not allowing freedom of speech etc.

If i lived there, i would be terrified to criticize the dictatorship.

And you cannot. In Singapore, no-one is allowed to say anything bad about anyone.

Also, it's still illegal to be gay.

Whilst being the most backward first-world country is better not being a first-world country at all, he and the government have not made steps to make the society progress anywhere beyond the most basic level of living needs.

Economic development is important, but having nothing but only economic development is bad, especially when it's not mutually exclusive to have economic development and freedom (USA), or cultural development (UK), or creativity (Japan), or a functional legal system (most first-world countries), and many other things.

To compare Singapore with its closest rival, Hong Kong, it is not that impressive of a success story. Economically both cities are developed more or less the same, but HK dominated East Asia culturally, has an independent juridical system, a lot more liberal legally, has actual freedom, and has a more functional democracy despite its system being more restrictive than SG's - all these despite not being an English-speaking country and under Chinese rule.



And stopped there. You can argue that you need to be tough in the beginning before you could let it grow itself, just like military rule right after a chaos, but not for forever.



Because he didn't need to. The court always ruled in favour of him.



His time in office is irrelevant but until now it's still in his son's hand. What is this? A monarchy?

You can run an opposing party, but nobody, including the opposing party, has the freedom to actually say anything against anyone.



And you cannot. In Singapore, no-one is allowed to say anything bad about anyone.

Also, it's still illegal to be gay.

Two points.

Firstly Hong Kong was far from democratic. The locals dos what the governor told them to do.

Secondly, being gay is illegal in huge parts of the world.

For some unkown reason the 'capitalism is bad' brigade have come out in force.

I've yet to meet somebody from Singapore who decried Singapore for being anything but a success story.

One point: You can't read.



I've never said HK was/is democratic. I literally said the system is even more restrictive but it's still somehow more functional because the people actually vote in a natural way.

I also didn't say anything in the past during the colonial era.



Did you miss it when I said it's the most backward first-world country?



Exactly where? I literally said economic development is important and that other things could be developed alongside it, citing many countries as examples.



So what?

Can you be a bit more specific? It might be illegal to throw out the sort of pantomime sound bites that we are used to seeing in the British papers, but how often do those really engage with any issue important to the governance of the country? If we had these laws and (for instance) David Cameron abolished the NHS, it wouldn't matter if it were illegal to say that the abolishing of the NHS was a bad thing; you could win just by stating that you would bring back the NHS for positive reasons that have nothing to do with Cameron or the government.

It seems likely to me that the PAP keeps winning because the opposition (which seems to be some sort of reformed communist party) can't offer a better programme.

I think the governing party is genuinely popular. However it is not competing against a rival offer to the public.

There a number of aspects of dictatorship. Singapore is a "legal" dictatorship in that there is a rule of law but that law is not fair between government and opposition. Moreover the law attempts to manipulate the conduct of the opposition. For the most part individual laws are not unfair but collectively they amount to oppression.

The opposition is always divided because the government can and does bestow patronage Parliamentary positions on some of its opponents. That means that those opposition figures do not need the support of organised parties. As a result opposition parties are weak.

There are financial legal barriers to participation in politics but the extensive use of the law of defamation and fines for illegal political activity therefore operate as covert bans on political activity. The opposition is permanently engaged in trying to raise funds to extract people from bankruptcy to enable them to stand for election.

There is a bureaucracy of participation in politics which hits opposition politicians more harshly both because of inconsistent application of these laws but also because the laws themselves are biased against activity which only the opposition wishes to undertake.