4 ms·

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.

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
"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." I think more tyrants should do that. Yet again, you people could use qualifiers because the propaganda seeps through. " countries out poverty" Many are still in poverty working long hours making almost nothing with little to show. At least the business owners and foreign investors are making money on their efforts. It's not Africa poverty but in America we still call it poverty. Such people are measured to live shorter, less healthy, and less happy lives. "most educated" How much education do you get in history and critical thinking? Do they teach you to spot logical flaws and propaganda like our colleges often do? Do you apply that to the media and governments claims? Did you learn about places in the world that have good amount of safety and prosperity without draconian restrictions on their people? Did you actively debate among yourselves in government class every hot, political issue and other system of government to determine where you wanted your country to be in 10-20 years? Or did they just teach you language, science, math, tech, some literature, and how to apply those for your government or commercial employers? I'm genuinely curious as oppressive regimes limit education to focus on harmless stuff to limit dissent and I have little information on Singaporean education. "diverse populations " Diverse in terms of beliefs, politics, and economic strategies? Or just ethnically? Our strengths in the U.S. come from the former. The latter is insignificant as it doesn't directly contribute to anything. Our goal there is just reducing discrimination in hiring or justice. Real issues here. "all within the space of two generations." Singaporean's unique focus, work ethic, and belief in their country are things I've always given them credit for. Admirable and a great turn-around. Now, they're potential liabilities that are being used by elites in government and industry to exploit them. Time to learn new character traits and ideas for the nation to see where the great ones will take it next. :)
- hellofunk 10y ago
  This is spot-on.
- mediumdeviation 10y ago
  This is... I can't even. The lack of quantifiers is because I'm on a phone, and your claims are extreme. I'm not going to dignify all of them with a respond - a lot of the claims are hyperbolical and ridiculous. > How much education do you get in history and critical thinking? Do they teach you to spot logical flaws and propaganda like our colleges often do? Do you apply that to the media and governments claims? Yes. Yes to all of the questions you asked. Yes we do learn history and critical thinking in school. I know Operation Coldstore and Operation Spectrum. I know of the PAP's sordid history with the Barisan Sosialis. I don't trust the Straits Times, and frequently look for alternative viewpoints online. There is a large and vibrant blogging scene here, and netizens are more frequently than not critical of the government. > Did you learn about places in the world that have good amount of safety and prosperity without draconian restrictions on their people? Yes, and there are not many. People in the US gives up more freedom than they think, and its history is far from being clean. The UK has libel laws that are not entirely unlike Singapore's, just to pick a few broad examples. Singapore is not without flaws - gay rights, a misguided focus on the nuclear family and an almost cult-like focus on drugs as social vice. The lack of representation in politics, and increasingly xenophobic towards immigration. The poor work-life balance, income inequality, and lack of support for the poorest. There's a lot of things that are wrong with Singapore - you don't have to make shit up.
  - creamyhorror 10y ago
    From one Singaporean to another, thanks for doing the good work. I'd like to say that, by and large, most Singaporeans are concerned with economic and comfort issues. Cost of living, high home prices, wages depressed by foreign labour. These are the main issues that drive election results. After the 60% outcome in the 2011 election, the ruling party was shocked into a social-welfare response that resulted in a landslide 70% outcome in the 2015 elections. Opposition politicians, stung by this rejection, decried Singaporeans' general lack of interest in their hobby-horse topics. But the majority of the population really does think things have gotten better. You could say this is the "tyranny of the majority", because they're not interested in many of the topics that concern the minority. (Furthermore, the ruling party moved in the direction of opposition proposals for greater social welfare, giving the opposition less ground to stand on.) There's a great breadth of alternative viewpoints online: activists, anti-PAP people, and so forth. The minority view here is alive and well, even getting to the point of rabid exaggeration (e.g. Roy Ngerng). Ultimately, the objections to the Singapore system lie mostly in differences in principles. Is the current tradeoff of somewhat limited rights and good governance acceptable? To a large majority, it is. Is there a risk of a future government becoming abusive? Yes, but it's still remote in most Singaporeans' minds. I hope it's clear that, while Singaporeans complain about governmental mismanagement, they're mostly not asking for additional freedoms (like what some posters might think). They're asking for better governance and greater fairness in treatment. edit: In response to @nickpsecurity, I'd say the reason most Singaporeans don't complain publicly is, we really don't think the problems are as big as others think. @mediumdeviation and @visakanv here are clearly liberal in outlook, but they view the current ruling party positively on the whole. Their views really do reflect the majority of the younger, more educated/travelled crowd in Singapore (which isn't the only group that matters, of course).
Apocryphon 10y ago
People keep on forgetting about scale. Places like Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, are able to prosper despite being autocratic or semi-autocratic because they're cities. Similarly, New York has had relatively authoritarian mayors (by U.S. standards) in the past and improved because of it. But it's a far cry to say that such a national (or even major provincial) ruler would have the same sort of results. And the price to pay would be tyranny.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"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." I think more tyrants should do that. Yet again, you people could use qualifiers because the propaganda seeps through. " countries out poverty" Many are still in poverty working long hours making almost nothing with little to show. At least the business owners and foreign investors are making money on their efforts. It's not Africa poverty but in America we still call it poverty. Such people are measured to live shorter, less healthy, and less happy lives. "most educated" How much education do you get in history and critical thinking? Do they teach you to spot logical flaws and propaganda like our colleges often do? Do you apply that to the media and governments claims? Did you learn about places in the world that have good amount of safety and prosperity without draconian restrictions on their people? Did you actively debate among yourselves in government class every hot, political issue and other system of government to determine where you wanted your country to be in 10-20 years? Or did they just teach you language, science, math, tech, some literature, and how to apply those for your government or commercial employers? I'm genuinely curious as oppressive regimes limit education to focus on harmless stuff to limit dissent and I have little information on Singaporean education. "diverse populations " Diverse in terms of beliefs, politics, and economic strategies? Or just ethnically? Our strengths in the U.S. come from the former. The latter is insignificant as it doesn't directly contribute to anything. Our goal there is just reducing discrimination in hiring or justice. Real issues here. "all within the space of two generations." Singaporean's unique focus, work ethic, and belief in their country are things I've always given them credit for. Admirable and a great turn-around. Now, they're potential liabilities that are being used by elites in government and industry to exploit them. Time to learn new character traits and ideas for the nation to see where the great ones will take it next. :)

hellofunk 10y ago
This is spot-on.
mediumdeviation 10y ago
This is... I can't even. The lack of quantifiers is because I'm on a phone, and your claims are extreme. I'm not going to dignify all of them with a respond - a lot of the claims are hyperbolical and ridiculous. > How much education do you get in history and critical thinking? Do they teach you to spot logical flaws and propaganda like our colleges often do? Do you apply that to the media and governments claims? Yes. Yes to all of the questions you asked. Yes we do learn history and critical thinking in school. I know Operation Coldstore and Operation Spectrum. I know of the PAP's sordid history with the Barisan Sosialis. I don't trust the Straits Times, and frequently look for alternative viewpoints online. There is a large and vibrant blogging scene here, and netizens are more frequently than not critical of the government. > Did you learn about places in the world that have good amount of safety and prosperity without draconian restrictions on their people? Yes, and there are not many. People in the US gives up more freedom than they think, and its history is far from being clean. The UK has libel laws that are not entirely unlike Singapore's, just to pick a few broad examples. Singapore is not without flaws - gay rights, a misguided focus on the nuclear family and an almost cult-like focus on drugs as social vice. The lack of representation in politics, and increasingly xenophobic towards immigration. The poor work-life balance, income inequality, and lack of support for the poorest. There's a lot of things that are wrong with Singapore - you don't have to make shit up.
- creamyhorror 10y ago
  From one Singaporean to another, thanks for doing the good work. I'd like to say that, by and large, most Singaporeans are concerned with economic and comfort issues. Cost of living, high home prices, wages depressed by foreign labour. These are the main issues that drive election results. After the 60% outcome in the 2011 election, the ruling party was shocked into a social-welfare response that resulted in a landslide 70% outcome in the 2015 elections. Opposition politicians, stung by this rejection, decried Singaporeans' general lack of interest in their hobby-horse topics. But the majority of the population really does think things have gotten better. You could say this is the "tyranny of the majority", because they're not interested in many of the topics that concern the minority. (Furthermore, the ruling party moved in the direction of opposition proposals for greater social welfare, giving the opposition less ground to stand on.) There's a great breadth of alternative viewpoints online: activists, anti-PAP people, and so forth. The minority view here is alive and well, even getting to the point of rabid exaggeration (e.g. Roy Ngerng). Ultimately, the objections to the Singapore system lie mostly in differences in principles. Is the current tradeoff of somewhat limited rights and good governance acceptable? To a large majority, it is. Is there a risk of a future government becoming abusive? Yes, but it's still remote in most Singaporeans' minds. I hope it's clear that, while Singaporeans complain about governmental mismanagement, they're mostly not asking for additional freedoms (like what some posters might think). They're asking for better governance and greater fairness in treatment. edit: In response to @nickpsecurity, I'd say the reason most Singaporeans don't complain publicly is, we really don't think the problems are as big as others think. @mediumdeviation and @visakanv here are clearly liberal in outlook, but they view the current ruling party positively on the whole. Their views really do reflect the majority of the younger, more educated/travelled crowd in Singapore (which isn't the only group that matters, of course).

Apocryphon 10y ago

People keep on forgetting about scale. Places like Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, are able to prosper despite being autocratic or semi-autocratic because they're cities. Similarly, New York has had relatively authoritarian mayors (by U.S. standards) in the past and improved because of it. But it's a far cry to say that such a national (or even major provincial) ruler would have the same sort of results. And the price to pay would be tyranny.