4 ms·

had the same rulers/ruling party for decades Alternatively (with apologies for playing a bit fast and loose in terms of President/Prime Minister/Secretary - po

had the same rulers/ruling party for decades Alternatively (with apologies for playing a bit fast and loose in terms of President/Prime Minister/Secretary - political systems come in many shapes and sizes) and note that in some of these political party doesn't make much sense - when a military strongman stages a coup and holds power for a decade and a half, is there really a ruling political party? Japan- Liberal Democratic Party: 1955-1993, 1994-2009, 2012 to present Singapore- People's Action Party: 1959 to present Lee Kuan Yew: 1959 to 1990 Goh Chok Tong: 1990 to 2004 South Korea- Syngman Rhee: 1948 to 1960 (interestingly, exempted himself from an eight-year limit in 1954) Park Chung-hee: 1963 to 1979 (took power in military coup, assassinated) Taiwan- Chiang Kai-shek: 1950 to 1975 Kuomintang Party: 1950 to 1996, had the advantage of being a single-party state until roughly late eighties Definitely some decades in there.

ajross 9y ago
That's goalpost motion, though. By that standard the Chinese policy change in the headline is a total nothingburger because the communist party has been in power since the revolution and will continue to be after Xi is dead. Obviously, no: the headline is significant; east asian governments are subject to policy change and reform even within a single party rule; and this is a canard. There is a difference between indefinite rule by an abstract "party" and indefinite rule by an actual person. And China is crossing that gap.
- EliRivers 9y ago
  That level of political discussion is beyond me. I'm just presenting some examples of East Asian countries that had the same ruler / ruling-party for decades.
- chvid 9y ago
  What EliRivers described is exactly what I was referring to. And I don't think the "headline" is particular important btw.
- tonylinn80 9y ago
  How is removing hard limit on two terms "crossing that gap"? It'd be a much greater leap if Xi wants to rule indefinitely. Xi (and the communist party) wants stability, and he has to answer to what the people want to keep staying in power
tonylinn80 9y ago
I've lived in China, Singapore, and US for a long time. And I have to say Singapore government is apparently the most reasonable one out of the three. It most likely also have highest approval rate.

ajross 9y ago

That's goalpost motion, though. By that standard the Chinese policy change in the headline is a total nothingburger because the communist party has been in power since the revolution and will continue to be after Xi is dead. Obviously, no: the headline is significant; east asian governments are subject to policy change and reform even within a single party rule; and this is a canard. There is a difference between indefinite rule by an abstract "party" and indefinite rule by an actual person. And China is crossing that gap.

EliRivers 9y ago
That level of political discussion is beyond me. I'm just presenting some examples of East Asian countries that had the same ruler / ruling-party for decades.
chvid 9y ago
What EliRivers described is exactly what I was referring to. And I don't think the "headline" is particular important btw.
tonylinn80 9y ago
How is removing hard limit on two terms "crossing that gap"? It'd be a much greater leap if Xi wants to rule indefinitely. Xi (and the communist party) wants stability, and he has to answer to what the people want to keep staying in power

tonylinn80 9y ago

I've lived in China, Singapore, and US for a long time. And I have to say Singapore government is apparently the most reasonable one out of the three. It most likely also have highest approval rate.