See: title
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/world/asia/lee-kuan-yew-founding-father-and-first-premier-of-singapore-dies-at-91.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1409232722000&bicmet=1419773522000&_r=0
I'm really glad we could get two threads about him...
A chance for Martinus to dance on his grave a second time.
Is he Armenian?
I thought we already had one thread about Lick One Yew?
Pretty incredible legacy to leave behind, he's probably one of the most important and influential men of the mid-late twentieth century.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 23, 2015, 07:10:45 AM
Pretty incredible legacy to leave behind, he's probably one of the most important and influential men of the mid-late twentieth century.
Outside of Southeast Asia what was his importance and influence?
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 07:22:53 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 23, 2015, 07:10:45 AM
Pretty incredible legacy to leave behind, he's probably one of the most important and influential men of the mid-late twentieth century.
Outside of Southeast Asia what was his importance and influence?
Having that punk Michael Fay beaten.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 07:22:53 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 23, 2015, 07:10:45 AM
Pretty incredible legacy to leave behind, he's probably one of the most important and influential men of the mid-late twentieth century.
Outside of Southeast Asia what was his importance and influence?
He was a peace broker between mainland China and Taiwan in the 90s. Lee is Chinese, has great international standing and is seen as an honest broker between the two sides.
Probably even more important is his ideology. Every time someone says that only western style liberal democracies succeed, one of the most potent counter arguments is to point to Singapore. Clean, efficient government, first world living standards and growth, somewhat curtailed civil liberties, a mix of democracy and dictatorship, all in a tiny city-state that isn't supposed to survive on its own. Singapore is seen as a viable alternative to western style liberal democracies.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 23, 2015, 08:41:52 AM
He was a peace broker between mainland China and Taiwan in the 90s. Lee is Chinese, has great international standing and is seen as an honest broker between the two sides.
Well that's a thing.
QuoteProbably even more important is his ideology. Every time someone says that only western style liberal democracies succeed, one of the most potent counter arguments is to point to Singapore. Clean, efficient government, first world living standards and growth, somewhat curtailed civil liberties, a mix of democracy and dictatorship, all in a tiny city-state that isn't supposed to survive on its own. Singapore is seen as a viable alternative to western style liberal democracies.
I am not sure the idea that a benevolent dictatorship is a great form of government has ever gone away. The problem is that those are hard to find.
It is hardly benevolent - of course if you are like Mono and you don't believe in personal freedom, then sure it is an example of a "success story". But so was nazi Germany until early 1940s, if your definition of a success is Holocaust of the Jews.
I think Lee's influence is more along the lines of dictatorships seeking ex post justification rather than honestly serving as a model for other countries to emulate.
So not very influential.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 08:56:58 AM
I am not sure the idea that a benevolent dictatorship is a great form of government has ever gone away. The problem is that those are hard to find.
See, he has done it. It is not a theory. Here is a rich, generally happy, peaceful one-party state that holds genuine, if flawed elections every few years, and the people vote for it every time. It may not be much in the eyes of the US or western Europe. But for places like China, Iraq, Afganistan etc, Singapore can serve as a role model.
Disagree. I think he's one of the father figures of the modern East Asian model and considerably more influential than any PM of Singapore has a right to be.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 23, 2015, 09:02:25 AM
Disagree. I think he's one of the father figures of the modern East Asian model and considerably more influential than any PM of Singapore has a right to be.
Between your love for the Catholic Church, sympathy for Mike Huckabee and this, your politics is frequently very bizarre. Did you lack a strong father figure in your upbringing or something, as you seem to yearn for a paternalistic authoritarianism.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 23, 2015, 09:02:00 AM
See, he has done it. It is not a theory. Here is a rich, generally happy, peaceful one-party state that holds genuine, if flawed elections every few years, and the people vote for it every time. It may not be much in the eyes of the US or western Europe. But for places like China, Iraq, Afganistan etc, Singapore can serve as a role model.
Of course it is not a theory. It happens every once in a while and people put up with Caligulas in the hopes the next one will be Trajan. I prefer my governments being able to function with complete drooling incompetents in charge, like in Texas.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 23, 2015, 09:02:25 AM
Disagree. I think he's one of the father figures of the modern East Asian model and considerably more influential than any PM of Singapore has a right to be.
The modern East Asian model? I can agree there is an East Asian economic model, but I don't see many political similarities.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 09:05:59 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 23, 2015, 09:02:00 AM
See, he has done it. It is not a theory. Here is a rich, generally happy, peaceful one-party state that holds genuine, if flawed elections every few years, and the people vote for it every time. It may not be much in the eyes of the US or western Europe. But for places like China, Iraq, Afganistan etc, Singapore can serve as a role model.
Of course it is not a theory. It happens every once in a while and people put up with Caligulas in the hopes the next one will be Trajan. I prefer my governments being able to function with complete drooling incompetents in charge, like in Texas.
Yeah, the problem with dictatorships is not that it is inacapable of producing a great leader (although absolute power corrupts absolutely so it is a question for how long one can stay great) but that it is incapable of preventing a monster, if one comes around.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2015, 09:06:43 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 23, 2015, 09:02:25 AM
Disagree. I think he's one of the father figures of the modern East Asian model and considerably more influential than any PM of Singapore has a right to be.
The modern East Asian model? I can agree there is an East Asian economic model, but I don't see many political similarities.
Well, there is North Korea, too.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 09:05:59 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 23, 2015, 09:02:00 AM
See, he has done it. It is not a theory. Here is a rich, generally happy, peaceful one-party state that holds genuine, if flawed elections every few years, and the people vote for it every time. It may not be much in the eyes of the US or western Europe. But for places like China, Iraq, Afganistan etc, Singapore can serve as a role model.
Of course it is not a theory. It happens every once in a while and people put up with Caligulas in the hopes the next one will be Trajan. I prefer my governments being able to function with complete drooling incompetents in charge, like in Texas.
Like I said, you can't compare Singapore with the US. The US will never adopt the Singaporean model. But imagine yourself being a mainland Chinese, or an Iraqi. Suddenly Singapore seems like a much better alternative than what you have right now. If, for whatever reason, you can't adopt liberal democracy overnight, there is another possibility out there.
What makes Lick One Jew a scumbag, though, is that he worked to consolidate his power and to silence opponents - getting more and more oppressive in each year - so exactly the opposite to what you are implying, Mono (i.e. a suggestion that this can serve as some sort of a transitory state to liberal democracy).
Singapore is probably one of the least desirable models of economic development I can think of. Along with the PRC.
There's affluence, but not a good life.
Mono is right that the Singaporean example - sometimes as a shining exemplar of so-called "Asian values" - is one frequently held up by gradual-reform CCPers as the ultimate goal for China, and that is part of Lee's legacy (for better or for worse). Of course, whether that model would be viable on the scale of a nation as large as China is another question, and my own view is that it probably wouldn't be.
Quote from: Norgy on March 23, 2015, 09:19:20 AM
Singapore is probably one of the least desirable models of economic development I can think of. Along with the PRC.
There's affluence, but not a good life.
Well, Brunei is probably worse.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 23, 2015, 09:02:00 AM
See, he has done it. It is not a theory. Here is a rich, generally happy, peaceful one-party state that holds genuine, if flawed elections every few years, and the people vote for it every time. It may not be much in the eyes of the US or western Europe. But for places like China, Iraq, Afganistan etc, Singapore can serve as a role model.
I don't think that Singapore (nor China itself) can really serve as a role model in this regard for countries that don't have something like the tradition of "the Mandate of Heaven," where government legitimacy depends on the government being virtuous and thus successful. The key to the success of Singapore (and, at least until recently, China) was that the ruling class had a genuine sense of obligation to serve the interests of the people and keep personal gain to a reasonable level. No such sense of obligation exists in the warlord class of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Uganda, etc.
I agree with you, though, that Lee was one of the most significant Asian statesmen of the 20th Century. Singapore is much better-poised for true democracy than is, say, India.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 09:21:33 AM
Singapore is much better-poised for true democracy than is, say, India.
:unsure: What does India have now exactly?
Given that India is the world's largest democracy and it functions fairly well, I am perplexed by grumbler's statement.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 09:24:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 09:21:33 AM
Singapore is much better-poised for true democracy than is, say, India.
:unsure: What does India have now exactly?
An extraordinary corrupt facade of democracy that only Marti could look at and say 'that functions fairly well."
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 09:24:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 09:21:33 AM
Singapore is much better-poised for true democracy than is, say, India.
:unsure: What does India have now exactly?
Over a billion people spread across a variety of regions and climates.
Not much in common with the city-state of Singapore.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 10:14:13 AM
An extraordinary corrupt facade of democracy that only Marti could look at and say 'that functions fairly well."
It is India, chaos and mayhem is its natural state.
For a country of that size, it is functioning fairly well. I, for one, would much rather live there than in China.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 10:39:09 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 10:14:13 AM
An extraordinary corrupt facade of democracy that only Marti could look at and say 'that functions fairly well."
It is India, chaos and mayhem is its natural state.
That's kind of a blithe write-off of a billion lives. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2015, 10:41:43 AM
For a country of that size, it is functioning fairly well. I, for one, would much rather live there than in China.
I'll recall this statement every time you get on your high horse about the disgusting way India treats its women. I am sure the Chinese also would prefer that you live in India.
However, only a moron would applaud the current state of India, and only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of morons would rather be a typical Indian living in India today to a typical Chinese living in China today. A typical Indian doesn't share Marti's delusions that Indian "democracy" is actually democratic, and that would be the only plausible thing that could be better-rated in India besides, perhaps, a more impartial legal system.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 10:47:18 AM
That's kind of a blithe write-off of a billion lives. :huh:
If that is how you interpreted that then I apologize, that was not my intent at all. I am a great admirer of India. That is a giant multi-national multi-ethnic state that shouldn't work, yet does. To me it represents the hope of the world.
The fact it is also kind of a basket case is part of its charm. India muddles through.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 10:53:39 AM
If that is how you interpreted that then I apologize, that was not my intent at all. I am a great admirer of India. That is a giant multi-national multi-ethnic state that shouldn't work, yet does. To me it represents the hope of the world.
The fact it is also kind of a basket case is part of its charm. India muddles through.
I guess that I don't find corruption, widespread rape, honor killings and infanticide as charming as you do. :mellow:
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 10:56:21 AM
I guess that I don't find corruption, widespread rape, honor killings and infanticide as charming as you do. :mellow:
There is a bit more to India than just those things. And those are hardly unique to India in that part of the world. But yes everything about India is extremely...intense.
But anyway I thought you accused me of being all emo at being upset by life's outrages.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 10:59:10 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 10:56:21 AM
I guess that I don't find corruption, widespread rape, honor killings and infanticide as charming as you do. :mellow:
There is a bit more to India than just those things.
:yes: Public defecating.
Quote from: The Brain on March 23, 2015, 11:00:59 AM
:yes: Public defecating.
:lol:
See? Now that is character and charm lost to most of the world.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 10:59:10 AM
There is a bit more to India than just those things. And those are hardly unique to India in that part of the world. But yes everything about India is extremely...intense.
I am not sure what a couple of tautologies and a self-evidently absurd assertion about "everything about India" adds to the discussion. My argument was that Singapore is closer to true democracy than India. You challenged that assertion. I point out my reasons. You don't point out any reasons, and instead argue about India's "charm" and "intens[ity]."
Do you seriously believe that India today is closer to true democracy than Singapore? If so, why?
QuoteBut anyway I thought you accused me of being all emo at being upset by life's outrages.
I am not all that concerned about what you
thought I accused you of, and just wonder: is this the first entry in a non sequitur contest?
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 10:52:58 AM
A typical Indian doesn't share Marti's delusions that Indian "democracy" is actually democratic, and that would be the only plausible thing that could be better-rated in India besides, perhaps, a more impartial legal system.
And how the fuck do you know what a typical Indian thinks?
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 11:28:44 AM
I am not all that concerned about what you thought I accused you of, and just wonder: is this the first entry in a non sequitur contest?
Well there went my attempt at friendly camaraderie.
QuoteI am not sure what a couple of tautologies and a self-evidently absurd assertion about "everything about India" adds to the discussion. My argument was that Singapore is closer to true democracy than India. You challenged that assertion. I point out my reasons. You don't point out any reasons, and instead argue about India's "charm" and "intens[ity]."
That is false. I was only curious about the assertion, I never questioned it. Your reasons are certainly reasons but beyond the corruption thing I do not see what they have to do with Democracy. There is nothing about Democracy that requires virtue.
QuoteDo you seriously believe that India today is closer to true democracy than Singapore? If so, why?
Well they hold massive free-ish and fair-ish elections where somebody from outside the establishment recently won. But I am not sure what the definition of "true democracy" is.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2015, 11:32:04 AM
And how the fuck do you know what a typical Indian thinks?
Because I've talked to typical Indians, and to people who work with typical Indians on a daily basis. I also read more about India than just reviews for the movie
Gandhi.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 11:42:32 AM
That is false. I was only curious about the assertion, I never questioned it. Your reasons are certainly reasons but beyond the corruption thing I do not see what they have to do with Democracy. There is nothing about Democracy that requires virtue.
I don't know what the capitalized "Democracy" is that you are referring to, here, so can't respond. Maybe if you explained what you think it required for Democracy we can discuss that.
QuoteWell they hold massive free-ish and fair-ish elections where somebody from outside the establishment recently won. But I am not sure what the definition of "true democracy" is.
True democracy is "rule by the will of the people." I don't think that this is the case in India, where massive vote-buying and the huge influence that landlords and employers have (especially in local elections) challenges whether the elections represent the will of the people at all, or just the will of the elites.
You can critique the Indian state and government for lots of things (and you probably should), but not being a democracy is not one of them.
There have been several peaceful transitions of power between the BJP and Congress.
Quote from: Barrister on March 23, 2015, 12:23:38 PM
You can critique the Indian state and government for lots of things (and you probably should), but not being a democracy is not one of them.
There have been several peaceful transitions of power between the BJP and Congress.
It's a democracy, but not a
true democracy - no Scottish people can vote. ;)
For grumbler the only true democracy was the one when he and his buddies could vote in the agora on whether to declare war on Sparta over the Hellenic Hegemony. Everybody else was a copy-cat. :D
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2015, 12:55:42 PM
For grumbler the only true democracy was the one when he and his buddies could vote in the agora on whether to declare war on Sparta over the Hellenic Hegemony.
Bet he wishes he could have that one back. I feel the same way about voting for Ted Cruz.
QuoteTrue democracy is "rule by the will of the people." I don't think that this is the case in India, where massive vote-buying and the huge influence that landlords and employers have (especially in local elections) challenges whether the elections represent the will of the people at all, or just the will of the elites.
Ah gotcha.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 12:21:09 PM
True democracy is "rule by the will of the people." I don't think that this is the case in India, where massive vote-buying and the huge influence that landlords and employers have (especially in local elections) challenges whether the elections represent the will of the people at all, or just the will of the elites.
When I lived in Singapore a couple of years ago, it was a common criticism that the PAP mainly serves the interests of a very small elite around the Lee family. So I am not sure if that is a good criterion to distinguish between how ready India and Singapore are for "real" democracy.
It's a common enough complaint about American democracy too - that the two parties are dominated by the elites and special interests, and don't represent the true will of the people.
He missed the singularity.
Quote from: Siege on March 23, 2015, 01:17:17 PM
He missed the singularity.
I know. We can make it Siege!
Quote from: Barrister on March 23, 2015, 01:16:11 PM
It's a common enough complaint about American democracy too - that the two parties are dominated by the elites and special interests, and don't represent the true will of the people.
I imagine that's a complaint in every country in the world, with varying degrees of truth.
I think India and Singapore are coming at democracy from different directions so i'm not sure how much sense it makes to compare them. Singapore is a strongly centralized authoritarian regime with the trappings of democracy, while India is a decentralized mess where you can get away with quite a lot (including vote buying) because the rules are so rarely enforced. A vote or group of votes in India at least has the potential to make a difference (see the fact that politicians actually bother to buy them) and it has successfully undergone transitions of power. Singapore has the greater likelihood to be a better democracy in the future as it is a very small state and so could navigate reforms easier than a large country.
Quote from: Zanza on March 23, 2015, 01:13:19 PM
When I lived in Singapore a couple of years ago, it was a common criticism that the PAP mainly serves the interests of a very small elite around the Lee family. So I am not sure if that is a good criterion to distinguish between how ready India and Singapore are for "real" democracy.
If the argument was "is Singapore more democratic than India," yours would be a valid counter-argument for the two being about the same. But I don't know of anyone who is actually arguing that Singapore is more democratic. As far as how close each is to having a political system that is genuinely responsive to the desires of the people, I'd still argue that an effective democracy requires an informed and educated electorate, which pretty much requires a significant middle class, which Singapore has grown and India has not.
If you looked at, say, India and Korea fifty years ago, India would have seemed the one closer to being able to practice effective democracy, and Korea the further. Yet India seems the one further away today, and Korea has arrived. What's the difference? Korea has developed all the other criteria (beside BB's proposed sole one of having a peaceful transition of power) requisite for democracy to be effective. Singapore of today looks a lot closer to on-the-verge-of-democracy Korea than India does.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 02:16:57 PM
If the argument was "is Singapore more democratic than India," yours would be a valid counter-argument for the two being about the same. But I don't know of anyone who is actually arguing that Singapore is more democratic.
Good thing neither of us made that argument then. Not sure why you would bring it up though. Seems besides the point.
QuoteAs far as how close each is to having a political system that is genuinely responsive to the desires of the people, I'd still argue that an effective democracy requires an informed and educated electorate, which pretty much requires a significant middle class, which Singapore has grown and India has not.
I agree. But that's a different criterion to evaluate their readiness for democracy than the one about influence of elites that we discussed before.
QuoteIf you looked at, say, India and Korea fifty years ago, India would have seemed the one closer to being able to practice effective democracy, and Korea the further. Yet India seems the one further away today, and Korea has arrived. What's the difference? Korea has developed all the other criteria (beside BB's proposed sole one of having a peaceful transition of power) requisite for democracy to be effective. Singapore of today looks a lot closer to on-the-verge-of-democracy Korea than India does.
I agree again.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 12:21:09 PM
I don't know what the capitalized "Democracy" is that you are referring to, here, so can't respond. Maybe if you explained what you think it required for Democracy we can discuss that.
I meant democracy but capitalized it by mistake. I try not to bring in terms and concepts from outside a discussion is I can help it. My apologies.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 02:26:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 12:21:09 PM
I don't know what the capitalized "Democracy" is that you are referring to, here, so can't respond. Maybe if you explained what you think it required for Democracy we can discuss that.
I meant democracy but capitalized it by mistake. I try not to bring in terms and concepts from outside a discussion is I can help it. My apologies.
Okay. I misunderstood. I thought you were bringing in a new idea.
I think I have explained my position on Indian democracy and why I think Singapore is more likely to develop what i consider true democracy (and what true democracy is) about as well as I can. Feel free to disagree, but hopefully do so on something stronger than BB's "so long as you have a peaceful transition of power you are a democracy." Russia's a democracy by that standard.
No I get where you are coming from and I think basically your ideas are sound. I had just not heard that idea expressed before.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 02:36:16 PM
Okay. I misunderstood. I thought you were bringing in a new idea.
Did you really??
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 02:36:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 02:26:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 12:21:09 PM
I don't know what the capitalized "Democracy" is that you are referring to, here, so can't respond. Maybe if you explained what you think it required for Democracy we can discuss that.
I meant democracy but capitalized it by mistake. I try not to bring in terms and concepts from outside a discussion is I can help it. My apologies.
Okay. I misunderstood. I thought you were bringing in a new idea.
I think I have explained my position on Indian democracy and why I think Singapore is more likely to develop what i consider true democracy (and what true democracy is) about as well as I can. Feel free to disagree, but hopefully do so on something stronger than BB's "so long as you have a peaceful transition of power you are a democracy." Russia's a democracy by that standard.
How is Russia a democracy by that standard?
The transition from USSR to Russia was most definitely not peaceful, punctuated by quite a number of tanks. Putin was then Yeltsin's hand-picked successor. Medveyev was Putin's hand-picked successor, and of course proceeded to hand the Presidency back to Putin.
A peaceful transition of power is not a transition within the same ruling party or structure - if that was all it took then even the PRC would be a successful democracy. Instead it is the peaceful transition between opposing parties or groups that makes one a successful democracy.
It's a rough measuring stick, but a fairly useful one IMO. It allows you to weed out countries with democratic facades such as Russia, or even Singapore, with flawed but functioning democracies.
There is at least one country that my suggested rule would mark as not a democracy, but other indications would say it is - South Africa.
I would disagree with your assertion that a democracy requires an educated and informed electorate. Not that an educated and informed electorate is not very helpful - it is. But by making it a requirement, you make democracy a measuring stick for social development, and not something independent.
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 08:56:58 AM
I am not sure the idea that a benevolent dictatorship is a great form of government has ever gone away. The problem is that those are hard to find.
The idea of benevolent dictatorship has been there ever since the time of the first dictatorship. Sometimes it even happened to come to fruition. Unfortunately, it's kind of hard to create a system where you can have both a leader that is powerful enough to be a dictator, and institutions that are powerful enough to ensure their benevolence.
Quote from: Barrister on March 23, 2015, 02:49:09 PM
There is at least one country that my suggested rule would mark as not a democracy, but other indications would say it is - South Africa.
Bavaria has been ruled by the same party for 58 years now and there is no end in sight. Yet no one doubts that Bavaria is a working liberal democracy.
Quote from: Zanza on March 23, 2015, 03:03:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 23, 2015, 02:49:09 PM
There is at least one country that my suggested rule would mark as not a democracy, but other indications would say it is - South Africa.
Bavaria has been ruled by the same party for 58 years now and there is no end in sight. Yet no one doubts that Bavaria is a working liberal democracy.
:zipped:
:P
Quote from: Zanza on March 23, 2015, 03:03:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 23, 2015, 02:49:09 PM
There is at least one country that my suggested rule would mark as not a democracy, but other indications would say it is - South Africa.
Bavaria has been ruled by the same party for 58 years now and there is no end in sight. Yet no one doubts that Bavaria is a working liberal democracy.
And Alberta has been ruled by the same party for 44 years.
Still think "has there been a peaceful transition of power" is a useful measuring stick.
Beeb has issues with the ANC? Tell me it ain't so. That a white conservative possibly could be against darkies ruling themselves.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.static-economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Foriginal-size%2Fimages%2F2015%2F03%2Fblogs%2Fgraphic-detail%2F20150321_gdc865_4.png&hash=dae03d6217e409c8fa68c70d8e239e0501a542f9)
Quote from: Norgy on March 23, 2015, 04:15:48 PM
Beeb has issues with the ANC? Tell me it ain't so. That a white conservative possibly could be against darkies ruling themselves.
The real problem lies with people who don't have an issue with the ANC.
Quote from: DGuller on March 23, 2015, 02:51:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 08:56:58 AM
I am not sure the idea that a benevolent dictatorship is a great form of government has ever gone away. The problem is that those are hard to find.
The idea of benevolent dictatorship has been there ever since the time of the first dictatorship. Sometimes it even happened to come to fruition. Unfortunately, it's kind of hard to create a system where you can have both a leader that is powerful enough to be a dictator, and institutions that are powerful enough to ensure their benevolence.
IDK, I think it's possible-maybe easier-to establish rule of law and property rights within an authoritarian structure than an undeveloped democratic one. India and Brazil don't have either despite democracy. Fukuyama's latest talks a lot about this.
I'd much rather live in a society with property rights, rule of law and government monopoly on violence than one with just political liberties, TBH. It's not even close. Give me 1870s Prussia/Germany over 1870s Deadwood any day of the week.
Quote from: Camerus on March 23, 2015, 09:20:04 AM
Mono is right that the Singaporean example - sometimes as a shining exemplar of so-called "Asian values" - is one frequently held up by gradual-reform CCPers as the ultimate goal for China, and that is part of Lee's legacy (for better or for worse). Of course, whether that model would be viable on the scale of a nation as large as China is another question, and my own view is that it probably wouldn't be.
Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, apparently not Asian enough. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Queequeg on March 23, 2015, 04:57:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 23, 2015, 02:51:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 08:56:58 AM
I am not sure the idea that a benevolent dictatorship is a great form of government has ever gone away. The problem is that those are hard to find.
The idea of benevolent dictatorship has been there ever since the time of the first dictatorship. Sometimes it even happened to come to fruition. Unfortunately, it's kind of hard to create a system where you can have both a leader that is powerful enough to be a dictator, and institutions that are powerful enough to ensure their benevolence.
IDK, I think it's possible-maybe easier-to establish rule of law and property rights within an authoritarian structure than an undeveloped democratic one. India and Brazil don't have either despite democracy. Fukuyama's latest talks a lot about this.
I don't disagree with grumbler's thesis. Order comes before freedom, in my opinion, both in priority and in timing.
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2015, 09:05:52 AM
Between your love for the Catholic Church, sympathy for Mike Huckabee and this, your politics is frequently very bizarre.
I don't think any of those things - to the extent they exist - mean anything about my politics. I don't only like, or try to understand or empathise with things or people I already agree with. That's easy and boring.
QuoteDid you lack a strong father figure in your upbringing or something, as you seem to yearn for a paternalistic authoritarianism.
Erm, no and no :lol:
Quote from: DGuller on March 23, 2015, 05:24:13 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 23, 2015, 04:57:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 23, 2015, 02:51:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 08:56:58 AM
I am not sure the idea that a benevolent dictatorship is a great form of government has ever gone away. The problem is that those are hard to find.
The idea of benevolent dictatorship has been there ever since the time of the first dictatorship. Sometimes it even happened to come to fruition. Unfortunately, it's kind of hard to create a system where you can have both a leader that is powerful enough to be a dictator, and institutions that are powerful enough to ensure their benevolence.
IDK, I think it's possible-maybe easier-to establish rule of law and property rights within an authoritarian structure than an undeveloped democratic one. India and Brazil don't have either despite democracy. Fukuyama's latest talks a lot about this.
I don't disagree with grumbler's thesis. Order comes before freedom, in my opinion, both in priority and in timing.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - B. Franklin. ;)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2015, 04:21:29 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 23, 2015, 04:15:48 PM
Beeb has issues with the ANC? Tell me it ain't so. That a white conservative possibly could be against darkies ruling themselves.
The real problem lies with people who don't have an issue with the ANC.
I do, and I would like to see someone else in charge in SA. The ANC was a liberation movement. Like so many other liberation movements, it's turned to an oligarchy.
So you were being facetious.
I wouldn't mind living in a "soft" authoritarian state with economic opportunities.... provided I still have my Western passport of course. ;)
Another issue with the Singapore model apart from its acceptance of authoritarianism is its tolerance of massive wealth inequality. This could also be a function of the lack of democracy.
Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2015, 05:36:01 PM
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - B. Franklin. ;)
I'm not talking about safety, I'm talking about society's functioning. Ben Franklin and his contemporaries were building on centuries of governance tradition that England developed during its less than fully liberal phase.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2015, 06:03:31 PM
So you were being facetious.
I was being my ordinary assclowny assholy self.
This is what I bring.
Don't expect serious discussion or actual debate from me. I'm just here for the popsicles.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 23, 2015, 05:18:46 PM
Quote from: Camerus on March 23, 2015, 09:20:04 AM
Mono is right that the Singaporean example - sometimes as a shining exemplar of so-called "Asian values" - is one frequently held up by gradual-reform CCPers as the ultimate goal for China, and that is part of Lee's legacy (for better or for worse). Of course, whether that model would be viable on the scale of a nation as large as China is another question, and my own view is that it probably wouldn't be.
Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, apparwnrly not Asian enough. :rolleyes:
Not attractive options from the perspective of CCP leadership. :lol:
Quote from: Norgy on March 23, 2015, 06:15:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2015, 06:03:31 PM
So you were being facetious.
I was being my ordinary assclowny assholy self.
This is what I bring.
Don't expect serious discussion or actual debate from me. I'm just here for the popsicles.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg4.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20131223062138%2Fvillains%2Fimages%2F6%2F67%2FHerbert_-_Family_Guy.png&hash=4f450e88e887cf229589bc8c5b3508231591afa5)
Quote from: Camerus on March 23, 2015, 06:10:45 PM
I wouldn't mind living in a "soft" authoritarian state with economic opportunities.... provided I still have my Western passport of course. ;)
Another issue with the Singapore model apart from its acceptance of authoritarianism is its tolerance of massive wealth inequality. This could also be a function of the lack of democracy.
I find Singapore's kind of authoritarianism super easy to live with. I can't chew gum. Big deal. Can't criticise the government. Not going to do that anyway. Public humiliation for people who litter. That's good, actually.
As for massive wealth inequality, that happens everywhere in the world, especially in wealthy financial hubs. They do have welfare institutions in place, the most famous being cheap public housing for like 80-90% of the population.
He took over a small, shitty, poor ass island just off the coast of a much larger and racially hostile neighbor and made it into a well educated first world city with one of the longest life expectancies in the world.
Yeah it sucks that they cane people for littering and it is a challenge to buy gum and they are a one party state. But he probably deserves a bit more credit.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 23, 2015, 10:06:08 PM
He took over a small, shitty, poor ass island just off the coast of a much larger and racially hostile neighbor and made it into a well educated first world city with one of the longest life expectancies in the world.
Yeah it sucks that they cane people for littering and it is a challenge to buy gum and they are a one party state. But he probably deserves a bit more credit.
They don't cane people for littering. They cane people for vandalism. For littering, you pay a fine, and you need to clean the streets in front of camera :contract:
Quote from: Malthus on March 23, 2015, 05:36:01 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 23, 2015, 05:24:13 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 23, 2015, 04:57:53 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 23, 2015, 02:51:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 23, 2015, 08:56:58 AM
I am not sure the idea that a benevolent dictatorship is a great form of government has ever gone away. The problem is that those are hard to find.
The idea of benevolent dictatorship has been there ever since the time of the first dictatorship. Sometimes it even happened to come to fruition. Unfortunately, it's kind of hard to create a system where you can have both a leader that is powerful enough to be a dictator, and institutions that are powerful enough to ensure their benevolence.
IDK, I think it's possible-maybe easier-to establish rule of law and property rights within an authoritarian structure than an undeveloped democratic one. India and Brazil don't have either despite democracy. Fukuyama's latest talks a lot about this.
I don't disagree with grumbler's thesis. Order comes before freedom, in my opinion, both in priority and in timing.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - B. Franklin. ;)
But are more likely to ultimately have both.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 23, 2015, 05:14:17 PM
I'd much rather live in a society with property rights, rule of law and government monopoly on violence than one with just political liberties, TBH. It's not even close. Give me 1870s Prussia/Germany over 1870s Deadwood any day of the week.
I'll take Deadwood. And I see no reason we can't both have what we want.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 23, 2015, 10:06:08 PM
He took over a small, shitty, poor ass island just off the coast of a much larger and racially hostile neighbor and made it into a well educated first world city with one of the longest life expectancies in the world.
Yeah it sucks that they cane people for littering and it is a challenge to buy gum and they are a one party state. But he probably deserves a bit more credit.
To be fair, it wasn't that poor. You could have much worse starts as a nation than being a British trade port in Asia. You've got both good governance culture and good economic infrastructure to go from.
Quote from: DGuller on March 23, 2015, 10:29:57 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 23, 2015, 10:06:08 PM
He took over a small, shitty, poor ass island just off the coast of a much larger and racially hostile neighbor and made it into a well educated first world city with one of the longest life expectancies in the world.
Yeah it sucks that they cane people for littering and it is a challenge to buy gum and they are a one party state. But he probably deserves a bit more credit.
To be fair, it wasn't that poor. You could have much worse starts as a nation than being a British trade port in Asia. You've got both good governance culture and good economic infrastructure to go from.
Look at the graph zanza posted upthread.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 23, 2015, 10:34:59 PM
Look at the graph zanza posted upthread.
I did. What did I miss?
Which shows Singapore being richer than Malaysia, China, and India even at the start. Still, impressive growth, no doubt.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2015, 10:40:44 PM
Which shows Singapore being richer than Malaysia, China, and India even at the start. Still, impressive growth, no doubt.
It was roughly even with malaysia which at the time was third world.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 23, 2015, 10:44:27 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 23, 2015, 10:40:44 PM
Which shows Singapore being richer than Malaysia, China, and India even at the start. Still, impressive growth, no doubt.
It was roughly even with malaysia which at the time was third world.
It was actually closer to twice as high as Malaysia's, though you can't see it clearly on Zanza's graph (because linear scale makes growth look more impressive, interpretability be damned).
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 23, 2015, 10:22:06 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 23, 2015, 05:14:17 PM
I'd much rather live in a society with property rights, rule of law and government monopoly on violence than one with just political liberties, TBH. It's not even close. Give me 1870s Prussia/Germany over 1870s Deadwood any day of the week.
I'll take Deadwood. And I see no reason we can't both have what we want.
Well enjoy having your throat slit by Al Swearengen. I'll be drinking Riesling with Max Weber in Heidelberg.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 23, 2015, 10:22:06 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 23, 2015, 05:14:17 PM
I'd much rather live in a society with property rights, rule of law and government monopoly on violence than one with just political liberties, TBH. It's not even close. Give me 1870s Prussia/Germany over 1870s Deadwood any day of the week.
I'll take Deadwood. And I see no reason we can't both have what we want.
Go to to Detroit and get involved in the Drug business. That's pretty close to the mining business in Deadwood in terms and profitability and survivorship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WvPpdo9b9E
Interview on Charlie Rose.
Quote from: Camerus on March 23, 2015, 06:10:45 PM
Another issue with the Singapore model apart from its acceptance of authoritarianism is its tolerance of massive wealth inequality. This could also be a function of the lack of democracy.
We all know how well American democracy has dealt with that particular problem. :P
Quote from: Monoriu on March 23, 2015, 07:18:50 PM
Quote from: Camerus on March 23, 2015, 06:10:45 PM
I wouldn't mind living in a "soft" authoritarian state with economic opportunities.... provided I still have my Western passport of course. ;)
Another issue with the Singapore model apart from its acceptance of authoritarianism is its tolerance of massive wealth inequality. This could also be a function of the lack of democracy.
I find Singapore's kind of authoritarianism super easy to live with. I can't chew gum. Big deal. Can't criticise the government. Not going to do that anyway. Public humiliation for people who litter. That's good, actually.
As for massive wealth inequality, that happens everywhere in the world, especially in wealthy financial hubs. They do have welfare institutions in place, the most famous being cheap public housing for like 80-90% of the population.
I don't think most straight men would have a problem with patriarchal authoritarianism on a personal level. It's different if you are a single woman or gay.
For example, you still get jailed in Singapore for gay sex.
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2015, 12:49:56 AM
I don't think most straight men would have a problem with patriarchal authoritarianism on a personal level. It's different if you are a single woman or gay.
Are you saying chewing gum makes you gay? :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2015, 12:49:56 AM
I don't think most straight men would have a problem with patriarchal authoritarianism on a personal level. It's different if you are a single woman or gay.
For example, you still get jailed in Singapore for gay sex.
No idea about Singapore and gays. What's the issue with single women in Singapore? :unsure:
Quote from: Queequeg on March 23, 2015, 11:09:44 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 23, 2015, 10:22:06 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 23, 2015, 05:14:17 PM
I'd much rather live in a society with property rights, rule of law and government monopoly on violence than one with just political liberties, TBH. It's not even close. Give me 1870s Prussia/Germany over 1870s Deadwood any day of the week.
I'll take Deadwood. And I see no reason we can't both have what we want.
Well enjoy having your throat slit by Al Swearengen. I'll be drinking Riesling with Max Weber in Heidelberg.
Germany in 1870 wasn't all that oppressive. Your analogy would make more sense if you used Czarist Russia.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 24, 2015, 12:58:24 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2015, 12:49:56 AM
I don't think most straight men would have a problem with patriarchal authoritarianism on a personal level. It's different if you are a single woman or gay.
For example, you still get jailed in Singapore for gay sex.
No idea about Singapore and gays. What's the issue with single women in Singapore? :unsure:
Google it.
By the way, isn't it reassuring that Tim teaches English?
Well, he does know a lot of synonyms for "bad".
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2015, 01:32:46 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 24, 2015, 12:58:24 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2015, 12:49:56 AM
I don't think most straight men would have a problem with patriarchal authoritarianism on a personal level. It's different if you are a single woman or gay.
For example, you still get jailed in Singapore for gay sex.
No idea about Singapore and gays. What's the issue with single women in Singapore? :unsure:
Google it.
I get a few hundred dating sites. And a couple that says "Singapore women are picky".
You should clear your cache if your wife shares your computer.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 24, 2015, 01:57:48 AM
You should clear your cache if your wife shares your computer.
:lol: She uses an iMac, and won't sink so low as to use my PC.
Usually :ph34r:
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2015, 12:49:56 AM
I don't think most straight men would have a problem with patriarchal authoritarianism on a personal level. It's different if you are a single woman or gay.
Wait wait Mono now speaks for most straight men? Ok you are taking this gender and sexuality stuff too far now.
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2015, 08:02:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2015, 12:49:56 AM
I don't think most straight men would have a problem with patriarchal authoritarianism on a personal level. It's different if you are a single woman or gay.
Wait wait Mono now speaks for most straight men? Ok you are taking this gender and sexuality stuff too far now.
Yes, that is clearly what Marti was saying. ^_^
Quote from: garbon on March 24, 2015, 08:03:19 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2015, 08:02:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2015, 12:49:56 AM
I don't think most straight men would have a problem with patriarchal authoritarianism on a personal level. It's different if you are a single woman or gay.
Wait wait Mono now speaks for most straight men? Ok you are taking this gender and sexuality stuff too far now.
Yes, that is clearly what Marti was saying. ^_^
:yes: Valmy missed it, but it is
Marti that is claiming to speak for most straight men.
Quote from: garbon on March 24, 2015, 08:03:19 AM
Yes, that is clearly what Marti was saying. ^_^
I like how we usually agree on things :hug:
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 12:00:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2015, 11:32:04 AM
And how the fuck do you know what a typical Indian thinks?
Because I've talked to typical Indians, and to people who work with typical Indians on a daily basis. I also read more about India than just reviews for the movie Gandhi.
My Dad was Indian, I've spent about 6 months of my live in India. I've even watched Gandhi twice. Yet, I have no idea what a typical Indian
is, let alone what he thinks. I'm hugely impressed that you have managed to develop such insight, just through talking to some ex-pats.
Quote from: Gups on March 24, 2015, 08:30:27 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 12:00:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2015, 11:32:04 AM
And how the fuck do you know what a typical Indian thinks?
Because I've talked to typical Indians, and to people who work with typical Indians on a daily basis. I also read more about India than just reviews for the movie Gandhi.
My Dad was Indian, I've spent about 6 months of my live in India. I've even watched Gandhi twice. Yet, I have no idea what a typical Indian is, let alone what he thinks. I'm hugely impressed that you have managed to develop such insight, just through talking to some ex-pats.
Such self-hatred. :( :console:
Quote from: Gups on March 24, 2015, 08:30:27 AM
My Dad was Indian, I've spent about 6 months of my live in India. I've even watched Gandhi twice. Yet, I have no idea what a typical Indian is, let alone what he thinks. I'm hugely impressed that you have managed to develop such insight, just through talking to some ex-pats.
I'm glad to impress you, and sorry you are having such a bad time of figuring out what "typical" means and what kinds of Indians might be considered typical. Also, not every Indian is an "ex-pat;" that might be part of your trouble.
Of course, if you wish to discuss something substantive rather than simply sniping at semantics, we could do that, too.
You've already said. A typical Indian is one who would prefer to live in China than in India. No semantics are required.
Quote from: Gups on March 24, 2015, 08:48:07 AM
You've already said. A typical Indian is one who would prefer to live in China than in India. No semantics are required.
Is that what you read? Well, then, you think you have your answer, so no discussion necessary. Thanks for sharing. I think I can move on.
:lol:
I laughed.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 24, 2015, 01:06:22 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 23, 2015, 11:09:44 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 23, 2015, 10:22:06 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 23, 2015, 05:14:17 PM
I'd much rather live in a society with property rights, rule of law and government monopoly on violence than one with just political liberties, TBH. It's not even close. Give me 1870s Prussia/Germany over 1870s Deadwood any day of the week.
I'll take Deadwood. And I see no reason we can't both have what we want.
Well enjoy having your throat slit by Al Swearengen. I'll be drinking Riesling with Max Weber in Heidelberg.
Germany in 1870 wasn't all that oppressive. Your analogy would make more sense if you used Czarist Russia.
So you think Singapore has more in common with pogrom-happy Russia, that didn't have rule of law or firm property rights or welfare, than with Singapore?
So Grumbler has put his foot in his mouth and is now doing a victory lap which must look strange with one foot.
Quote from: Martinus on March 24, 2015, 12:48:24 AM
Quote from: Camerus on March 23, 2015, 06:10:45 PM
Another issue with the Singapore model apart from its acceptance of authoritarianism is its tolerance of massive wealth inequality. This could also be a function of the lack of democracy.
We all know how well American democracy has dealt with that particular problem. :P
I'd much prefer to being working class in America than working class in Singapore.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 23, 2015, 07:18:50 PM
Quote from: Camerus on March 23, 2015, 06:10:45 PM
I wouldn't mind living in a "soft" authoritarian state with economic opportunities.... provided I still have my Western passport of course. ;)
Another issue with the Singapore model apart from its acceptance of authoritarianism is its tolerance of massive wealth inequality. This could also be a function of the lack of democracy.
I find Singapore's kind of authoritarianism super easy to live with. I can't chew gum. Big deal. Can't criticise the government. Not going to do that anyway. Public humiliation for people who litter. That's good, actually.
I agree, and that probably could work reasonably well for city-states like Singapore.
I honestly didn't miss any civil liberties when living in Shenzhen, but then as a foreigner my situation is quite different than the average person's. The main annoyance was the Great Firewall, but with a VPN it was a piece of cake to access any site anyway. The relative economic opportunities that I had more than made up for that. The large communities of ex-pats in tier-one cities like Shenzhen, Shanghai, etc feel largely the same way.
But if the CCP is hoping to one day emulate Singapore's soft authoritarianism, China still has a long way to go in terms of property rights, rule of law etc, and I doubt they will ever get there. I'm not sure the system could work in any large nation, or in China in particular.
It's worth noting that chewing gum is actually kind of unique in how much of a blight it creates on sidewalks. I read or watched something about the fact that it is virtually impossible to remove from the pavement surface due to the way the gum chemically degrades. And those gum stains are pretty unsightly when you think about it, though you tend to stop seeing them when you live in a big city.
IIRC, it's now fairly easy to obtain chewing gum at the pharmacy with a dentist's prescription/recommendation.
Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2015, 08:15:57 AM
:yes: Valmy missed it, but it is Marti that is claiming to speak for most straight men.
Well, he does think his cleaning lady is kinda hot. :hmm:
I do find it curious that Martinus evidently would be perfectly comfortable living under an autocratic regime as long as they allow him to have sex with other men.
Quote from: Gups on March 24, 2015, 08:30:27 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2015, 12:00:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 23, 2015, 11:32:04 AM
And how the fuck do you know what a typical Indian thinks?
Because I've talked to typical Indians, and to people who work with typical Indians on a daily basis. I also read more about India than just reviews for the movie Gandhi.
My Dad was Indian, I've spent about 6 months of my live in India. I've even watched Gandhi twice. Yet, I have no idea what a typical Indian is, let alone what he thinks. I'm hugely impressed that you have managed to develop such insight, just through talking to some ex-pats.
:lol:
Quote from: Camerus on March 24, 2015, 10:07:41 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 23, 2015, 07:18:50 PM
Quote from: Camerus on March 23, 2015, 06:10:45 PM
I wouldn't mind living in a "soft" authoritarian state with economic opportunities.... provided I still have my Western passport of course. ;)
Another issue with the Singapore model apart from its acceptance of authoritarianism is its tolerance of massive wealth inequality. This could also be a function of the lack of democracy.
I find Singapore's kind of authoritarianism super easy to live with. I can't chew gum. Big deal. Can't criticise the government. Not going to do that anyway. Public humiliation for people who litter. That's good, actually.
I agree, and that probably could work reasonably well for city-states like Singapore.
I honestly didn't miss any civil liberties when living in Shenzhen, but then as a foreigner my situation is quite different than the average person's. The main annoyance was the Great Firewall, but with a VPN it was a piece of cake to access any site anyway. The relative economic opportunities that I had more than made up for that. The large communities of ex-pats in tier-one cities like Shenzhen, Shanghai, etc feel largely the same way.
But if the CCP is hoping to one day emulate Singapore's soft authoritarianism, China still has a long way to go in terms of property rights, rule of law etc, and I doubt they will ever get there. I'm not sure the system could work in any large nation, or in China in particular.
A lot of HKers live in mainland apartments that are equipped with servers that allow unrestricted access to the internet. That Great Firewall isn't designed to block absolutely everything. Afterall, mainland Chinese are now allowed to travel overseas. So there really is not much point about preventing the people from finding out what happened in 1989, for example. Word is going to spread with or without the firewall. What they are really worried about is the internet being used to organise protests.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 24, 2015, 07:32:58 PM
Quote from: Camerus on March 24, 2015, 10:07:41 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 23, 2015, 07:18:50 PM
Quote from: Camerus on March 23, 2015, 06:10:45 PM
I wouldn't mind living in a "soft" authoritarian state with economic opportunities.... provided I still have my Western passport of course. ;)
Another issue with the Singapore model apart from its acceptance of authoritarianism is its tolerance of massive wealth inequality. This could also be a function of the lack of democracy.
I find Singapore's kind of authoritarianism super easy to live with. I can't chew gum. Big deal. Can't criticise the government. Not going to do that anyway. Public humiliation for people who litter. That's good, actually.
I agree, and that probably could work reasonably well for city-states like Singapore.
I honestly didn't miss any civil liberties when living in Shenzhen, but then as a foreigner my situation is quite different than the average person's. The main annoyance was the Great Firewall, but with a VPN it was a piece of cake to access any site anyway. The relative economic opportunities that I had more than made up for that. The large communities of ex-pats in tier-one cities like Shenzhen, Shanghai, etc feel largely the same way.
But if the CCP is hoping to one day emulate Singapore's soft authoritarianism, China still has a long way to go in terms of property rights, rule of law etc, and I doubt they will ever get there. I'm not sure the system could work in any large nation, or in China in particular.
A lot of HKers live in mainland apartments that are equipped with servers that allow unrestricted access to the internet. That Great Firewall isn't designed to block absolutely everything. Afterall, mainland Chinese are now allowed to travel overseas. So there really is not much point about preventing the people from finding out what happened in 1989, for example. Word is going to spread with or without the firewall. What they are really worried about is the internet being used to organise protests.
I agree that is probably their main concern, but of course on a practical level that means that Facebook, Youtube, etc. are all blocked. Hence, the need for a VPN for those of us not lucky enough to be HKers in special apartments. ;)
However, I also think it is about more than just blocking sites that could be used to organize protests, and is also mixed with a good deal of information censorship (e.g. periodic blocking of NYT) and also just old fashioned protectionism for Chinese tech companies.
Quote from: Camerus on March 24, 2015, 08:22:46 PM
I agree that is probably their main concern, but of course on a practical level that means that Facebook, Youtube, etc. are all blocked. Hence, the need for a VPN for those of us not lucky enough to be HKers in special apartments. ;)
However, I also think it is about more than just blocking sites that could be used to organize protests, and is also mixed with a good deal of information censorship (e.g. periodic blocking of NYT) and also just old fashioned protectionism for Chinese tech companies.
The thing with the mainland is that many things are arbitrary. Say, civil servants in HK need to justify everything. We need to establish rules and principles, justify them, explain them to the public, write papers and seek the endorsement of some authority, then follow the rules. On the mainland, it is just "the guy in charge" said this and that sites should be blocked, and they are.
Quote from: Monoriu on March 24, 2015, 08:38:51 PM
Quote from: Camerus on March 24, 2015, 08:22:46 PM
I agree that is probably their main concern, but of course on a practical level that means that Facebook, Youtube, etc. are all blocked. Hence, the need for a VPN for those of us not lucky enough to be HKers in special apartments. ;)
However, I also think it is about more than just blocking sites that could be used to organize protests, and is also mixed with a good deal of information censorship (e.g. periodic blocking of NYT) and also just old fashioned protectionism for Chinese tech companies.
The thing with the mainland is that many things are arbitrary. Say, civil servants in HK need to justify everything. We need to establish rules and principles, justify them, explain them to the public, write papers and seek the endorsement of some authority, then follow the rules. On the mainland, it is just "the guy in charge" said this and that sites should be blocked, and they are.
Yeah, that's a good point as well.
Re: arbitrary policies... When I lived in Nanjing, banking was a nightmare, simply because the "policy" on money transfer and exchange could be totally different on any given day depending on who was working at the bank that day. Some days, it was "forbidden" for foreigners to exchange or transfer money, other days, you were entitled to transfer or exchange a significant amount of money, and sometimes you could only exchange a very small sum. :lol:
Of course, like the Great Firewall, you eventually discovered there were ways around that too. :P
HK news reports that droves of Singaporeans turn up to pay their final respects to Lee's coffin. At the peak, people line up for 8 hours in the streets to get into the Parliament building, where the coffin is located. The lines are so long that the authorities require mourners to keep moving when they finally get within sight of the coffin.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2015, 09:38:49 AM
So Grumbler has put his foot in his mouth and is now doing a victory lap which must look strange with one foot.
Typical
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2015, 06:09:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2015, 09:38:49 AM
So Grumbler has put his foot in his mouth and is now doing a victory lap which must look strange with one foot.
Typical
Typical cheap shot, as untrue as all cheap shots are. :showoff:
But thanks for supporting the cheap shot, in case anyone missed how morally bankrupt you generally sound. :bowler:
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 06:22:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2015, 06:09:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2015, 09:38:49 AM
So Grumbler has put his foot in his mouth and is now doing a victory lap which must look strange with one foot.
Typical
Typical cheap shot
How many typical Canucks did you speak to?
Quote from: Monoriu on March 25, 2015, 05:52:56 PM
HK news reports that droves of Singaporeans turn up to pay their final respects to Lee's coffin. At the peak, people line up for 8 hours in the streets to get into the Parliament building, where the coffin is located. The lines are so long that the authorities require mourners to keep moving when they finally get within sight of the coffin.
The king is dead.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FAbout%2FGeneral%2F2012%2F1%2F4%2F1325679891396%2FLee-Hsien-Loong-007.jpg&hash=d5582dd7e8cf93f5a40b6cdc99275965d1e1d540)
Long live the king!
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2015, 06:55:51 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on March 25, 2015, 05:52:56 PM
HK news reports that droves of Singaporeans turn up to pay their final respects to Lee's coffin. At the peak, people line up for 8 hours in the streets to get into the Parliament building, where the coffin is located. The lines are so long that the authorities require mourners to keep moving when they finally get within sight of the coffin.
The king is dead.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FAbout%2FGeneral%2F2012%2F1%2F4%2F1325679891396%2FLee-Hsien-Loong-007.jpg&hash=d5582dd7e8cf93f5a40b6cdc99275965d1e1d540)
Long live the king!
Well, the new king has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. So he likely won't be in power too long. He also lacks the standing of his father. In the last election "only" 60% of the people voted for his party - that's a record low in Singapore, where the voting itself is clean and genuine.
People survive cancer.
But just in case is his daughter ready?
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2015, 07:46:56 PM
People survive cancer.
But just in case is his daughter ready?
I am not sure, but my guess is not. His children seem a bit young and they have not held important public offices. In any case, they'll also want to avoid being accused of maintaining a North Korean style dynasty.
How does it work in Singapore? The Party nominates one guy, then they have a yes/no referendum?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2015, 08:10:10 PM
How does it work in Singapore? The Party nominates one guy, then they have a yes/no referendum?
It is a British style parliamentary system. They elect MPs in various districts, and the majority party form a government. In reality the system heavily favours the incumbent party, and there are many obstacles for the opposition. Opposition leaders are frequently sued for libel, and the government "penalises" the districts that voted for opposition parties in the past (no renovation for those public housing estates, for example). But the voting itself is not rigged.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2015, 06:51:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2015, 06:22:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2015, 06:09:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 24, 2015, 09:38:49 AM
So Grumbler has put his foot in his mouth and is now doing a victory lap which must look strange with one foot.
Typical
Typical cheap shot
How many typical Canucks did you speak to?
He was dying for you to respond to me. He could rebut me otherwise. :lol: I can't believe he still goes through this charade.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 24, 2015, 01:45:52 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 24, 2015, 08:15:57 AM
:yes: Valmy missed it, but it is Marti that is claiming to speak for most straight men.
Well, he does think his cleaning lady is kinda hot. :hmm:
I do find it curious that Martinus evidently would be perfectly comfortable living under an autocratic regime as long as they allow him to have sex with other men.
It so just happens that most (all?) autocratic regimes actually significantly limit freedoms of gay people (compared to straight people), even if they do not ban gay sex outright. We are the canary in the coalmine of oppression.
Show me an autocratic country that has full freedoms for gay people and I will tell you whether I would like to live there.
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2015, 01:14:37 AM
Show me an autocratic country that has full freedoms for gay people and I will tell you whether I would like to live there.
That's the point, they don't have *full freedoms* for anyone. By definition. So why would anybody(besides the ruler and perhaps a small oligarchic class that benefits economically) wish to live there?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 26, 2015, 01:23:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 26, 2015, 01:14:37 AM
Show me an autocratic country that has full freedoms for gay people and I will tell you whether I would like to live there.
That's the point, they don't have *full freedoms* for anyone. By definition. So why would anybody(besides the ruler and perhaps a small oligarchic class that benefits economically) wish to live there?
Different people have different preferences. I don't want to live in North Korea, but I am perfectly ok with Singapore or Mainland China, even though there is no "full freedom" in these places. I'd rather have a job in China than to be unemployed in Canada, that's why.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh101%2FMonoriu%2Fgun-carriage-spread-11_zpswohcvevh.jpg&hash=d98cd0a3d294660e206397b1d2695b8ad6487302) (http://s62.photobucket.com/user/Monoriu/media/gun-carriage-spread-11_zpswohcvevh.jpg.html)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh101%2FMonoriu%2FLee-111-1024x512_zpsd4vksrod.jpg&hash=dca948d7757d7ea021a9df665a294edc8c550920) (http://s62.photobucket.com/user/Monoriu/media/Lee-111-1024x512_zpsd4vksrod.jpg.html)
The funeral service is today. Singaporeans are still lining up for 8-10 hours to see his coffin.
Pageantry would not appear to be a Singaporean strong suit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2015, 03:30:18 PM
Pageantry would not appear to be a Singaporean strong suit.
Well, Lee was known as a very practical person. He also worked to keep the government lean.
So I've had one Singaporean friend who posted on fb about how he stood in line 3 hours to see the coffin and that though his young son wouldn't have understand, he hopes he will remember. On the other hand, my other friend has been saying that it won't be soon enough till the man is put in the dustbin of history.
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2015, 04:13:07 AM
So I've had one Singaporean friend who posted on fb about how he stood in line 3 hours to see the coffin and that though his young son wouldn't have understand, he hopes he will remember. On the other hand, my other friend has been saying that it won't be soon enough till the man is put in the dustbin of history.
It is no secret that Lee is a controversial figure. I think Lee isn't a dictator who runs the country for his personal gain. Rather, he is the representative of the middle class Singaporeans who seek stability and economic development above all else. It is a dictatorship of the majority. The electorate consistently give Lee and his party mandate after mandate to carry on what they do, and it seems to me that Lee is genuinely loved by the majority of Singaporeans. He didn't run the country to enlarge his Swiss bank account. He ran the country so that if he needs to flatten forests to make way for more airport runways, he can put the environmentalists behind bars and build the runway as soon as possible.