6 ms·

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,

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.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    "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." That's not absurd at all. Our politicians in U.S. do it all the time while pretending the campaign contributions are just companies and individuals supporting our political system. Many private sector people have also gone into politics or government positions for the image and power. Running an entire country has historically attracted more tyrants than true, humble servants of their citizens. In this case, it's even more obvious something is up. The country's turn-around started with a revolution of sorts by dissenters who took control of the government. It's turned into an economic powerhouse with the culture put in place but mostly in terms of cheap labor, etc. The problem is that the party cemented this into place by taking control of the media, filling schools with propaganda, blocking rights to dissent, and jailing/torturing dissenters that might cause next revolution (or even evolution). A leader that uses legal and police might to force everything in one permanent direction where the many benefit a rich and powerful few, some local & some foreign, is almost by definition at tyrant. He's highly likely to be on a power trip. Otherwise, he should pass laws protecting speech and press freedom with a strong, independent press allowed. Keep other stuff the same for now but let new ideas percolate into system to improve it. So, Loong and Yew are more likely to be tyrants oppressing a people than innovators continuing to protect them. No term limit is a natural extension of that. :)
    - mediumdeviation 10y ago
      This is possibly one of the funniest things I've read on the Internet today. You're absolutely right. By the sound of it they could be tyrants on power trips. On the other hand I think the world would be a much better place if all tyrants on power trips lifted their countries out poverty, creating one of the most educated, cosmopolitan and diverse populations in the world, all within the space of two generations.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago

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.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "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." That's not absurd at all. Our politicians in U.S. do it all the time while pretending the campaign contributions are just companies and individuals supporting our political system. Many private sector people have also gone into politics or government positions for the image and power. Running an entire country has historically attracted more tyrants than true, humble servants of their citizens. In this case, it's even more obvious something is up. The country's turn-around started with a revolution of sorts by dissenters who took control of the government. It's turned into an economic powerhouse with the culture put in place but mostly in terms of cheap labor, etc. The problem is that the party cemented this into place by taking control of the media, filling schools with propaganda, blocking rights to dissent, and jailing/torturing dissenters that might cause next revolution (or even evolution). A leader that uses legal and police might to force everything in one permanent direction where the many benefit a rich and powerful few, some local & some foreign, is almost by definition at tyrant. He's highly likely to be on a power trip. Otherwise, he should pass laws protecting speech and press freedom with a strong, independent press allowed. Keep other stuff the same for now but let new ideas percolate into system to improve it. So, Loong and Yew are more likely to be tyrants oppressing a people than innovators continuing to protect them. No term limit is a natural extension of that. :)
  - mediumdeviation 10y ago
    This is possibly one of the funniest things I've read on the Internet today. You're absolutely right. By the sound of it they could be tyrants on power trips. On the other hand I think the world would be a much better place if all tyrants on power trips lifted their countries out poverty, creating one of the most educated, cosmopolitan and diverse populations in the world, all within the space of two generations.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago