4 ms·

Singapore is such an impressive city-state, but it always struck me as the political equivalent of that guy we all know, who went to a top school and became a h

Singapore is such an impressive city-state, but it always struck me as the political equivalent of that guy we all know, who went to a top school and became a highly performant professional but never subjected himself to a serious self-examination of his ultimate purpose in life. Singapore is a stunningly efficient country, but towards what end? Governments and cities should exist for people, not the other way around. I do still admire Singapore, and very much hope to visit some day. Great article.

notahacker 11y ago
> Governments and cities should exist for people, not the other way around To a large extent I saw Singapore - for better and for worse - as a country whose sense of purpose was entirely focused on existing for and achieving the ends of what its people actually want (to be much wealthier, healthier and more secure than their grandparents) without worrying too much about means like political debate, ideology or caring much about heritage, national identity, environmental impact or whether William Gibson thought it was as edgy and cool as Kowloon Walled City. I'm not sure its depoliticised, pragmatic governors whose tenure is secure unless they really screw up are really less "for the people" than the fiat of newly-elected ruling party du jour whose prize for winning competitive elections is the power to decide for people based whether its core ideology is conservative or socially liberal, or indeed systems where popular will is often subordinate to upholding constitutional principles and precedents established some centuries ago. Of course, just because death sentences for drug smugglers or retaining a token unenforced anti-gay law on the statute book are popular with the people doesn't mean they're remotely good ideas, but I'm not sure that the country examining its collective purpose would change them anyway. Government for somewhat culturally conservative people who have ugly memories of political discord and happy memories of getting a flat with actual running water is bound to take a different stance on what the people want than an competitive democracy in a long-developed country with a long-established libertarian streak.

notahacker 11y ago

> Governments and cities should exist for people, not the other way around To a large extent I saw Singapore - for better and for worse - as a country whose sense of purpose was entirely focused on existing for and achieving the ends of what its people actually want (to be much wealthier, healthier and more secure than their grandparents) without worrying too much about means like political debate, ideology or caring much about heritage, national identity, environmental impact or whether William Gibson thought it was as edgy and cool as Kowloon Walled City. I'm not sure its depoliticised, pragmatic governors whose tenure is secure unless they really screw up are really less "for the people" than the fiat of newly-elected ruling party du jour whose prize for winning competitive elections is the power to decide for people based whether its core ideology is conservative or socially liberal, or indeed systems where popular will is often subordinate to upholding constitutional principles and precedents established some centuries ago. Of course, just because death sentences for drug smugglers or retaining a token unenforced anti-gay law on the statute book are popular with the people doesn't mean they're remotely good ideas, but I'm not sure that the country examining its collective purpose would change them anyway. Government for somewhat culturally conservative people who have ugly memories of political discord and happy memories of getting a flat with actual running water is bound to take a different stance on what the people want than an competitive democracy in a long-developed country with a long-established libertarian streak.