4 ms·

The ruling party In Singapore has been in power since 1959, making it effectively a one party state. It may not be as authoritarian as some other countries, but

by ohazi 5y ago

The ruling party In Singapore has been in power since 1959, making it effectively a one party state. It may not be as authoritarian as some other countries, but the claim that it's a dictatorship is not as outrageous as you make it out to be.

gamegoblin 5y ago
In the United States, the Democratic Party controlled the House of Representatives from 1955 to 1995 (and the Senate for all but 6 of those years), yet it was hardly a one party state. My mental model for Singapore is that the People's Action Party (ruling party) is kind of like a BigCorp, and the other minor parties are like startups. Whenever one of the minor parties starts to do a little too well, the PAP does an "acquisition" of some of their platform. And thus society progresses without ever changing ruling parties. A vote for the PAP is a vote to maintain the well-run technocratic status quo, and a vote for a minor party is a vote to tell the PAP about some policies you'd like them to adopt. There is a legitimate debate to be had about district lines that might influence the fairness of the elections (gerrymandering), but many modern democracies have this issue.
- generalizations 5y ago
  > In the United States, the Democratic Party controlled the House of Representatives from 1955 to 1995 (and the Senate for all but 6 of those years), yet it was hardly a one party state. Considering that the house of representatives is a fraction of one branch of the us government, your comment falls in the category of "not even wrong."
  - a1369209993 5y ago
    No, not even wrong would be something like "the Democratic Party controlled the police from 1955 to 1995" (what is that even asserting?); their statement falls in the category of "perfectly true but irrelevant".
usaar333 5y ago
While long continuous rule likely indicates being less than fully democratic, it doesn't per se mean it is. Japan's LDP was in power for 38 years straight and only was kicked out of office by an economic downturn and corruption scandal (which Singapore has tended to avoid better). It then returned to power again for the next 15 years. That doesn't make Japan a dictatorship.
- makomk 5y ago
  Yeah, it's clear that Singapore's ruling party has worked hard to ensure that no-one can call them corrupt, or even publicise any information that would give the appearance of corruption.
  - lookACamel 5y ago
    Plus Singapore is literally a single city. Is it really that unusual for a city to be dominated by a single party, especially when there's no hinterland for competing parties to build up a base in?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by ohazi 5y ago

gamegoblin 5y ago

In the United States, the Democratic Party controlled the House of Representatives from 1955 to 1995 (and the Senate for all but 6 of those years), yet it was hardly a one party state. My mental model for Singapore is that the People's Action Party (ruling party) is kind of like a BigCorp, and the other minor parties are like startups. Whenever one of the minor parties starts to do a little too well, the PAP does an "acquisition" of some of their platform. And thus society progresses without ever changing ruling parties. A vote for the PAP is a vote to maintain the well-run technocratic status quo, and a vote for a minor party is a vote to tell the PAP about some policies you'd like them to adopt. There is a legitimate debate to be had about district lines that might influence the fairness of the elections (gerrymandering), but many modern democracies have this issue.

generalizations 5y ago
> In the United States, the Democratic Party controlled the House of Representatives from 1955 to 1995 (and the Senate for all but 6 of those years), yet it was hardly a one party state. Considering that the house of representatives is a fraction of one branch of the us government, your comment falls in the category of "not even wrong."
- a1369209993 5y ago
  No, not even wrong would be something like "the Democratic Party controlled the police from 1955 to 1995" (what is that even asserting?); their statement falls in the category of "perfectly true but irrelevant".

usaar333 5y ago

While long continuous rule likely indicates being less than fully democratic, it doesn't per se mean it is. Japan's LDP was in power for 38 years straight and only was kicked out of office by an economic downturn and corruption scandal (which Singapore has tended to avoid better). It then returned to power again for the next 15 years. That doesn't make Japan a dictatorship.

makomk 5y ago
Yeah, it's clear that Singapore's ruling party has worked hard to ensure that no-one can call them corrupt, or even publicise any information that would give the appearance of corruption.
- lookACamel 5y ago
  Plus Singapore is literally a single city. Is it really that unusual for a city to be dominated by a single party, especially when there's no hinterland for competing parties to build up a base in?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]