elirisi t1_ixvc6if wrote
Reply to comment by pizzapiejaialai in TIL Singapore’s constitution requires the President to have experience as a minister - or as CEO of a large, profitable company. by ltdanhasnolegs
Hes not wrong though, since its inception, singapore was ran as an authoritarian regime with lee kuan yew as the de facto dictator. However, I doubt thats what he cares about or what you are objecting to.
But rather, here in the west, the word "dictator" has its own negative connotations and baggage that goes with it. After all, the majority of autocrats in the world extracts the nation's wealth to enrich their own pockets, rarely are the nation's citizens wellbeing a concern. Lee Kuan Yew on the other hand is a great exception to this rule, a servant to the nation, he had duty and responsibility and created one of the most prosperous nations with an almost incorruptible bureaucracy. Afterall for the individual, only duty can balance the power one wields.
And yet I see in this thread, some of the most asinine takes on this small nation. People who should take a step back and ask themselves why LKY was considered such a great man by leaders in both the free world and the third world, but no, instead they will keep typing in their basement, unfairly criticizing the respect to duty singaporean leaders have to their nation.
I would love to visit singapore one day and visit their "white house" where LKY once resided to pay my respects.
Isares t1_ixvevkk wrote
Visiting the istana is actually possible on certain open days (which is where the president stays, or at least uses for formal state occassions).
Visiting LKY's actual house is currently impossible, and even if it were possible, would go against his explicit wishes for it to not be turned into a heritage site.
elirisi t1_ixvf7qf wrote
Not inside, maybe just see the outside, cause isnt his daughter still living inside there?
But yeah ofc LKY will say that, it was more in line with his personality. Yet, its really not up to him, it has historical and cultural significance, his son did the right thing to preserve it for singaporeans.
useablelobster2 t1_ixvzgej wrote
From what I've heard it's somewhat similar to Atatürk. An autocrat who is using that autocratic power for what he thinks is genuinely best, rather than just enriching himself.
Atatürk was technically a dictator, one who led his country from caliphate to secular nation-state. More in the mold of Cincinnatus than Saddam.
uristmcderp t1_ixy6859 wrote
The main context people seem to be missing is that Singapore is a very small country with little diversity in demographics. Democracy in a country where everyone already agrees on all the important issues obviously looks very different from democracy in a country where parties have to take turns being in power. It'd be like if some Californians or Texans formed a city-state and formed their own country, except in a tiny land mass with like 10% of the population.
abczyx123 t1_ixyrxxm wrote
This is a crazy statement to make given that racial riots were a key driving force behind Singapore becoming independent in the first place.
a_latvian_potato t1_ixydx0z wrote
> The main context people seem to be missing is that Singapore is a very small country with little diversity in demographics.
If you don't know what you are talking about then just don't talk.
Singapore has three major races (Chinese, Malays and Indians) and is anything but homogenous in both race and culture. Still they manage to get along and create a functioning society that respects the diversity.
elirisi t1_ixy9j8c wrote
Hmmm I would agree with you if you were talking about a scandinavian country with a homogenous population or like japan or something.
But Singapore was definitely not a country with little diversity. Chinese is the majority but its malaysian and indian population were 15 percent and 7.5 percent respectively, by percentage there are more malays in singapore than african americans in the US.
One of the main motivations singapore chose to have english as their primary language was not only because its the international business language but rather because they needed an objective third party language. Each language carries its own historical and cultural baggage, if singapore had forced its population to speak chinese there would have been race riots everyday. Instead they chose english were it gave everyone in singapore a level playing field. Which makes this both an economic decision as well as a socio-political decision.
Another snippet is their housing plan which is heavily criticized in the west which forces every ethnicity to live with each other. Like every apartment complex building had to have 15 percent malay and 7.5 indian. Despite it being a bit heavy handed in my view, had they not do that though, there would just have entrenched ethnic enclaves as humans love to divide ourselves into tribal groups.
The founding of singapore is a very spectacular piece of history, I can talk about it all day but i will stop now.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments