4 ms·

> I have never heard a single Singaporean show strong confidence or trust in their government In the last general election the ruling People's Action Party was

> I have never heard a single Singaporean show strong confidence or trust in their government In the last general election the ruling People's Action Party was voted in with a 70% popular vote. > and the lack of free speech is not insignificant to many It is not insignificant to many, but it's also not a major issue to most, again not at least if you look at the elections. I should mention at this point that I don't look upon the ruling party favorably. But these are the facts. > but most can't say too much about it publicly because of the punishment imposed. [citation needed]. The government doesn't take too kindly to certain types of speech, but critiques of its policies are generally not suppressed, and certainly not to the degree which you make it out to be (people fearing punishment for expression opinion out loud? Really?) I'm going to say that I don't have too much doubts about the government's motives, but rather its competency - the government, like most governments doesn't have the best track records in terms of its IT infrastructure, and a breech into a system that collects that much data will be incredibly damaging.

TheCoelacanth 10y ago
> In the last general election the ruling People's Action Party was voted in with a 70% popular vote. The lack of a significant opposition party kind of screams not-really-democratic to me. Even if all the voters had nearly identical views, you would expect there to be multiple parties competing over the few differences that do exist.
- mediumdeviation 10y ago
  Your statement would have been true for every election other than the last. In the last election the opposition parties fielded candidates in all but one of the constituencies. The 70% popular vote in what is the most hotly contested election in recent history after the dismal 60% the ruling party got in the previous election is widely seen as an affirmation of the party's mandate.
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    In a real democracy, 60% is not dismal; it is a landslide victory.
    - hellofunk 10y ago
      That's right. Very high win ratios in any "vote" are usually due to reasons other than popular sentiment.
CyberDildonics 10y ago
> I don't have too much doubts about the government's motives, but rather its competency From what I've seen its a rocky grey area on both sides. In some aspects the government is competent which is a double edged sword depending on what they are trying to accomplish. If they run IT like they run their post, expect total disaster.
hellofunk 10y ago
I don't think it is fair to discuss voting and democracy in the context of a nation that has been run by a single family for almost its entire history. A family, incidentally, that is profiting handsomely from the policies it imposes on its citizens.
- mediumdeviation 10y ago
  Your first sentence is valid. I wished the opposition was better, so that we have real representation. The current opposition parties are fragmented, and worse, seem very reactionary. Unfortunately with Singapore's aging population it is unlikely any party will try to appeal to voters in my demography. The second sentence however, is unfounded and uncalled for. The Lee's may be many things - harsh, autocratic even - but their integrity has never been called into question. Given their track record (the current PM Lee Hsien Long is a Senior Wrangler - "the greatest intellectual achievement attainable in Britain") one could very well imagine them being the CEO of a large multinational, which would be far more profitable than running a country and bending its policy to line their pocket.
  - hellofunk 10y ago
    I strongly disagree with your second paragraph, as well as the sensationalism you attribute to the quoted phrase, which adds no meaningful argument to the discussion. The history of Singapore's leading officials showcases nepotism at every turn of policy and appointment. There are reasons why most other advanced nations have term limits for leaders: it leads to a less corrupt society.
    - mediumdeviation 10y ago
      Singapore follows the British Westminister parliamentary system, which places no term limit on the Prime Minister. That is true for most other countries that follows the same system, like Australia and Canada. None of those countries are run by nepotistic dynasties. I don't think the lack of a term limit necessarily leads to more corruption. My quote was simply to point out the absurdity of getting yourself elected the head of a country - one that prides itself on being free from corruption - just so you can get rich from it. Both Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kwuan Yew are very capable people who no doubt would be far richer had they applied themselves to the private sector rather than public.

TheCoelacanth 10y ago

> In the last general election the ruling People's Action Party was voted in with a 70% popular vote. The lack of a significant opposition party kind of screams not-really-democratic to me. Even if all the voters had nearly identical views, you would expect there to be multiple parties competing over the few differences that do exist.

mediumdeviation 10y ago
Your statement would have been true for every election other than the last. In the last election the opposition parties fielded candidates in all but one of the constituencies. The 70% popular vote in what is the most hotly contested election in recent history after the dismal 60% the ruling party got in the previous election is widely seen as an affirmation of the party's mandate.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  In a real democracy, 60% is not dismal; it is a landslide victory.
  - hellofunk 10y ago
    That's right. Very high win ratios in any "vote" are usually due to reasons other than popular sentiment.

CyberDildonics 10y ago

> I don't have too much doubts about the government's motives, but rather its competency From what I've seen its a rocky grey area on both sides. In some aspects the government is competent which is a double edged sword depending on what they are trying to accomplish. If they run IT like they run their post, expect total disaster.

hellofunk 10y ago

I don't think it is fair to discuss voting and democracy in the context of a nation that has been run by a single family for almost its entire history. A family, incidentally, that is profiting handsomely from the policies it imposes on its citizens.

mediumdeviation 10y ago
Your first sentence is valid. I wished the opposition was better, so that we have real representation. The current opposition parties are fragmented, and worse, seem very reactionary. Unfortunately with Singapore's aging population it is unlikely any party will try to appeal to voters in my demography. The second sentence however, is unfounded and uncalled for. The Lee's may be many things - harsh, autocratic even - but their integrity has never been called into question. Given their track record (the current PM Lee Hsien Long is a Senior Wrangler - "the greatest intellectual achievement attainable in Britain") one could very well imagine them being the CEO of a large multinational, which would be far more profitable than running a country and bending its policy to line their pocket.
- hellofunk 10y ago
  I strongly disagree with your second paragraph, as well as the sensationalism you attribute to the quoted phrase, which adds no meaningful argument to the discussion. The history of Singapore's leading officials showcases nepotism at every turn of policy and appointment. There are reasons why most other advanced nations have term limits for leaders: it leads to a less corrupt society.
  - mediumdeviation 10y ago
    Singapore follows the British Westminister parliamentary system, which places no term limit on the Prime Minister. That is true for most other countries that follows the same system, like Australia and Canada. None of those countries are run by nepotistic dynasties. I don't think the lack of a term limit necessarily leads to more corruption. My quote was simply to point out the absurdity of getting yourself elected the head of a country - one that prides itself on being free from corruption - just so you can get rich from it. Both Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kwuan Yew are very capable people who no doubt would be far richer had they applied themselves to the private sector rather than public.