Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Current-Direction-97 t1_ixuea88 wrote

They should be required to be well trained philosophers or sociologists.

−18

Ritplays t1_ixuf304 wrote

but keep in mind the president here is more a head of state rather than the political decision maker like the US’s

445

ltdanhasnolegs OP t1_ixufumd wrote

Since 2017, there are also elections “reserved” for ethnic communities who haven’t been represented for 5 presidential terms.

85

ibot2 t1_ixufzgf wrote

Government does not operate like a business. It seems similar but employees are just a resource. I don't want my government treating me like a resource.

−9

Ahab_Ali t1_ixugbt0 wrote

They also cannot be a member of any political party on the date of their nomination for election. But that is because the President is largely a ceremonial office.

Singapore is a de facto dictatorship run by the People's Action Party and its Prime Minister. In the last 60+ years, there have only been three different Prime Ministers ruling Singapore.

173

12INCHVOICES t1_ixugnzk wrote

Why civics education is so important, in my opionion. When people value money above all else it's never long until the individual is thrown to the wayside for profit.

−6

Current-Direction-97 t1_ixuh9up wrote

Replying to MilchMensch (#684,105)

Philosophy worked for thousand of years before “democracy” to train good leaders. I think it can also work just fine now as well.

Reference Plato’s Republic.

It is orders of magnitude better than capitalism, or evangelical brainwashing that we mostly have now!

−14

ShalmaneserIII t1_ixuppnm wrote

There's definitely a lot to be said for this approach- something similar to the Roman cursus honorum, where you'd have a number of political offices you were expected to hold before you got to the top ones.

Goodness knows we've seen what you can get when you elect someone with absolutely no experience holding political office before.

48

Cute-Interest3362 t1_ixuyjny wrote

The whole reason Singapore exists as a country is to make money. There isn’t really much of a national identity. Also no free speech, no freedom of religion and really not a democracy.

−24

Jahobes t1_ixv0brk wrote

Replying to Cute-Interest3362 (#687,189)

Singaporeans have a really strong national identity what are you talking about. Every country should be about making money, that's how Singaporeans enjoy some of the highest standards of living on the planet.

17

MilchMensch t1_ixv63zo wrote

Replying to Current-Direction-97 (#684,459)

The problem is that philosophy cannot run a world of 8 billion people.

How many humans were alive during platos time? A billion maybe? I can see philosophy working then, but as soon as theres billions of people involved you need something like organized religion, authoritarianism or capitalism.

1

zachzsg t1_ixv7wiz wrote

Replying to MilchMensch (#688,357)

Also…. How many of these ancient civilizations were actually run by “philosophers” lol. From my studying, violence and brutality is what ran the show not “philosophy”

2

elirisi t1_ixvc6if wrote

Replying to pizzapiejaialai (#687,915)

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.

14

Isares t1_ixvevkk wrote

Replying to elirisi (#689,194)

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.

11

elirisi t1_ixvf7qf wrote

Replying to Isares (#689,538)

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.

−6

TheParisCommune1871 t1_ixvgzjg wrote

Isn’t Singapore a quasi military dictatorship like the ruling political party is the political party of the Military?

−15

nintendojunkie17 t1_ixvlo04 wrote

Replying to ShalmaneserIII (#685,779)

Unfortunately, we've also seen a lot of what you can get when you elect someone with absolutely no experience other than holding political office before. There's a big difference between having experience being a public leader and having experience getting people to vote for you.

Far too many elected officials are more concerned with getting reelected than actually doing anything with their position.

3

nintendojunkie17 t1_ixvmxyr wrote

Replying to ibot2 (#684,258)

This is true. Successful businesses have to attract and retain employees against changing market conditions and competition from other businesses. The government just has to rely on the fact that moving to a different country is a huge pain and probably has a lot of downsides.

To the government, you're not just a resource - you're a resource that's unlikely to quit and go somewhere else.

0

GreyEilesy t1_ixvoifo wrote

Replying to TheParisCommune1871 (#689,858)

Singapore is not ruled by the military in any way and is not remotely similar to Myanmar’s military government. Unlike some other ideas in this thread, I got no idea where this idea even comes from.

19

MurkDiesel t1_ixvqc31 wrote

it's so wild how people have been conditioned and brainwashed to blindly accept that profit equals supremacy

−7

TaskForceCausality t1_ixvqq5b wrote

Replying to Ritplays (#684,118)

The US Constitution doesn’t require the President to be a CEO first, but fundraising realities mean this is a de-facto rule. To raise the $300 million + needed to campaign for US office, one has to either be very wealthy (aka a CEO) or a lifelong political operator with decades of experience in Washington DC. Usually these career politicians sit on boards of nonprofits and for-profit companies , so they still serve as executives.

−14

hopkins-notakpopper t1_ixvu4d1 wrote

Managing a state is very different from managing a company but I totally agree to some training of public lilicies to the new law makers or executives.

10

useablelobster2 t1_ixvzgej wrote

Replying to elirisi (#689,194)

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.

4

useablelobster2 t1_ixw0afo wrote

Replying to MilchMensch (#684,105)

> but yeah some academic sociology experience should be 100% required for any position of power

Way to gatekeep with a soft-science subject, one all but completely captured by social engineers.

Let's not have people who think societies are giant experiments in charge shall we? That's how you get shit like collectivisation.

0

[deleted] t1_ixw0pja wrote

Replying to LPercepts (#691,131)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Elections_Committee

They have a committee that decides if a person is suitable enough to run for elections, based on very non-transparent rules. The current President was deemed the only one "fit enough" to run for Presidency and so she got elected without any opposition. Her selection also came with some race related controversy, because SG tries to do race balancing and so this cycle was unofficially reserved for a Malay. Halimah is only half Malay it seems (Indian father, Malay mother, officially registered as Indian) but identifies more with her Malay heritage than her Indian heritage.

16

winkman t1_ixw3bud wrote

Oooo, I like that rule!

1

TaleWrong6444 t1_ixwkdvl wrote

What a beautiful way to ensure the political and business elite are always in charge.

Thankfully the US Constitution is meant to open governance to the common person. Sadly, people have been convinced you need political experience or connections to make sound decisions. This is why we are f..ked as a nation. Things don't change because the same people that caused the problems are being elected by sheet, to solve those problems. Stupid.

−7

laconicflow t1_ixwtnli wrote

Replying to GothProletariat (#689,031)

I think every person is partisan in one or another way. Everybody's going to have some pet interests by the way they were raised, what their job was, I bet you you'll be a pro paper President if, before you were President you worked in that industry. Partisanship in political office is unavoidable.

5

Johannes_P t1_ixwwdyv wrote

OTH, ensuring competent and experimented leadership is very useful, especially when the constitution was written, when Singapore was still Third World.

OTOH, these criteres might entrehcn an oligarchy, with the President/Prime Minister choosing only people like him as minister and major companies being linked to the government.

Basically, it might end like when Venice closed (Serrata) its Great Council to new members.

−3

pandarable t1_ixwwlbv wrote

Replying to _whatcolouristhesky (#693,435)

In Singapore you follow the race of your father by default. So if your Father's race in the Identification Card is Indian, your Identification Card will identify you as an Indian. Only recently after the election are you allowed to add your mixed heritage such as Indian-Malay, Malay-Indian and etc to your Identification Card. For the most part the first race is usually of the Father's race followed by the Mother's race as declared in the Identification Card.

21

TemporaryReality5447 t1_ixx0088 wrote

Replying to LPercepts (#691,131)

Because the ruling party changed to rules so hard that they made her the only suitable candidate that round. And the non partisan thing is just a straight up farce, they usually get someone to resign from the party and then run for president

8

pandarable t1_ixx4az5 wrote

Replying to SG_wormsblink (#698,021)

Well it still didn't change the fact that the President's Father is Indian and therefore her race in her NRIC is Indian and the dual race identification is only applicable to those born after 2011. So other than you telling us that the President was born in 2011 and was 6 years old when she contested for the Presidential Election, the dual-race thing does not apply to her.

4

zxcvbmm t1_ixx4c1u wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#687,085)

Viewing things through lenses only distorts.

It’s really offensive to what they have achieved actually.

The real question is, is it a good idea objectively speaking? We don’t even hire a DMV customer service assistant without training, but will hire a literal clown to be president.

2

SG_wormsblink t1_ixx4kbn wrote

Replying to pandarable (#698,241)

This is what you wrote which was incorrect.

> Only recently after the election are you allowed to add your mixed heritage such as Indian-Malay, Malay-Indian and etc to your Identification Card.

I never said anything about the current president, you are making that up yourself.

4

thesleepybol t1_ixx5qov wrote

Replying to Advertising-Cautious (#684,650)

No point debating them my guy. Most non-Singaporeans can't wrap their head around the fact that:

  1. The majority can, and may actually want, to vote in a particular government repeatedly for over 60 years straight.

  2. Its possible for an incumbent government to function at a level consistently enough that they retain the majority's favour

  3. Asian societies can have a political dynasty like the US or Canada without it being autocratic (which lowkey reeks of western superiority tbh since its generally acceptable in the West but never in Asia)

On the 3rd point, it would be a stretch to even call it a political dynasty anymore: the PM in waiting has no connection to the Lee family and none of the candidates for the top position in government back when they were fighting it out were related to them either.

In fact, none of the descendants of the Lee family are involved in governance: one of them even had to leave Singapore to get married to his gay partner because of the laws here and I don't think he came back. That doesn't seem very dictator-like when even the members of your alleged "ruling" family have to leave.

Not saying that Singapore doesn't have its downsides (and we do have a lot): our treatment of the LGBTQ community, our drug laws, laws on civil protest, and treatment of foreign workers are outright draconic, and the list goes on. But I do agree with you that the calling us a dictatorship or autocracy just reflects a complete misunderstanding of Singapore's political landscape.

13

thesleepybol t1_ixx6bdw wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#687,085)

As a Singaporean, this is offensive and completely misses the point of the requirement. The point of the requirement was that the President's (de facto) real function is the management of Singapore's fiscal reserves, the drawing down of which has sort of attained a "measure of the last resort" status among the populace.

For that reason, the President requires should at least have some idea about governance, or at the very least some degree of economic or business knowledge to help them with that function.

6

RodneyDangerfuck t1_ixxlpdd wrote

Replying to MurkDiesel (#691,079)

but doesn't it? in a capitalist economy that's what it's all about. Hell i've seen money warp reality, get people believing nonsense because doing so would get them money.... I wonder how long such a system will last

1

SuicidalGuidedog t1_ixxtr3m wrote

Replying to rab777hp (#700,757)

A democracy isn't defined by changing government. It's defined by a system of government by the will of the people. Generally most people agree that 'democracy' is shorthand for 'representative democracy' whereby most people can vote freely and fairly (I say mostly because even the most democratic country doesn't let children vote). There are opposition parties and regular elections in Singapore so by that standard it's a democracy.

That being said, I don't think it counts as a logical democracy. Just not for the same reason you quoted above. A single party being repeatedly elected doesn't, on its own, prove a place to be undemocratic.

4

SuicidalGuidedog t1_ixxutkf wrote

Replying to SG_wormsblink (#698,021)

The previous answer is still accurate for an answer to the original question, based on your link. The policy is not retro-active so she would (should) have inherited her father's Indian race (according to the archaic Singaporian policy). Even those born after this 2011 policy change are still only allowed one race - the double barrel option doesn't change that. From your source "For relevant Government policies, such as the initial assignment to a mother-tongue language class in schools and the HDB’s Ethnic Integration Policy, the first component of a double-barrelled race will be used."

0

SG_wormsblink t1_ixy2d5d wrote

Replying to rab777hp (#700,757)

Since the majority of people voted freely for the ruling party to continue its rule, that’s a democracy.

Giving the position to the opposition party because they haven’t had their turn would go against the will of the people, that’s not democracy.

10

cchiu23 t1_ixy4h97 wrote

Replying to thesleepybol (#698,460)

This ignores the fact that

  1. Signapore has abysmal press freedoms

Yes its not impossible for a single party to keep people happy but it sure is easier if people are generally afraid to criticize you without reprisal

https://rsf.org/en/country/singapore

  1. The ruling party uses (read: abuses) the legal system to crush credible opponents

https://www.hrw.org/news/2008/10/17/singapore-end-efforts-silence-opposition

−2

uristmcderp t1_ixy6859 wrote

Replying to elirisi (#689,194)

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.

−1

elirisi t1_ixy9j8c wrote

Replying to uristmcderp (#703,389)

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.

3

thesleepybol t1_ixyaxyi wrote

Replying to cchiu23 (#703,183)

There's some nuance to be added to that I think, which applying a Western lens to Singapore politics results in the loss of.

On press freedoms:

  1. Singapore's press is heavily censored, I'll admit; but, I think this needs to be caveated in a few ways. First, its quite clear that censorship has little to do with political dissent and more to do with hate speech. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Singapore politics and policy, especially given the government's long-time stance on racial and religious harmony. (See Singapore's OB markers, their shift, and the calls for their narrowing vis-a-vis racial issues). Personally, there are other areas that I think deserve further narrowing of the respective OB markers for, but that's a discussion for another time. Regardless, the point is that its much more nuanced than simply saying people are afraid of criticising the government without reprisal. Unless of course, your point is that complete unfettered free speech, regardless of their truth is alright, which is the position in some countries.
  2. Second, its quite well-known that the role of the media in Singapore is very different from the Western idea of the media as the fourth estate: its been stated from as early as the 1990s that the media would only function as a source of information, without the accompanying political commentary that one sees in publications such as the NYT, Fox news, the Economist, etc. This was borne out of fear that media outlets can be manipulated to push conflicting or incendiary narratives. Considering how we see how the media can be manipulated to incite division or being used for political ends in the US, I'm inclined to say that our concerns were actually proven right. See the following for examples that were stated long before media manipulation in the US became a hot topic:

https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/news/speeches/speech-by-minister-for-home-affairs-and-minister-for-law-k-shanmugam-at-the-inaugural-forum-a

From paragraph 20 onwards: https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/2006100601.htm

​

On defamation suits:

  1. I think to say that the government abuses the legal system is quite uncalled for. To begin with, if someone makes false and defamatory statements about a person, or a government figure, are they to have no recourse to the courts? Defamation suits are very much a thing in most jurisdictions around the globe. I don't see why its highlighted as a problem in Singapore's case.
  2. Also, to say that the legal system is abused to silence opposition members glosses over the substance and effect of the allegations. For instance, in the recent defamation case launched by the current PM, he was accused of misappropriating public pension funds. Considering the serious political implications of this allegation, is the government expected to sit there and accept it, or should they be allowed to vindicate themselves in a court of law? If its the latter, that's how you get the unchecked spread of fake news. Again, I don't think that's a very viable option considering how its been shown (again by the US) that rational discourse responding to those spreading said allegation doesn't have any effect anymore.
  3. Also, Singapore doesn't even come anywhere close in the award for damages as compared to other jurisdictions. The UK, US and Australia regularly award sums from a million dollars or upwards. I think its a bit disingenuous to say that Singapore is especially harsh in defamation suits.
2

pizzapiejaialai t1_ixybh70 wrote

Replying to MyPCsuckswantnewone (#702,724)

I'm not defending the govt. I'm defending my right as a Singaporean not to be dictated to by supremely confident, yet utterly incompetent Americans whose knowledge of my country amounts to having watched a couple of half baked YouTube videos.

What utter nonsense, "de facto dictatorship".

When we have had free and fair elections since independence?

When we have a thriving civil society (AWARE, TWC2, Oogachaga)?

When we have a civilian-governed military?

When you can go to any MPS and complain about the government's incompetency without fear of retribution?

When we are entering our third political leadership succession in peace, never having had a bullet fired in response?

Contrast that with Americans and their Jan 6th insurrection.

We should all be annoyed at fly over critics like OP.

6

pizzapiejaialai t1_ixybvil wrote

Replying to cchiu23 (#703,183)

The methodology that Reporters without borders use is inaccurate, unscientific by any measure, and should be treated with the same derision you'd treat a highly partisan news channel.

When you rank Singapore (where the regional HQ of BBC, CNN, Reuters, etc and no journalists have been killed) lower than the Congo ( where 6 journalists have been killed in recent years) then everyone ought to laugh at you.

0

a_latvian_potato t1_ixydx0z wrote

Replying to uristmcderp (#703,389)

> 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.

5

Eric1491625 t1_ixypib5 wrote

Replying to Karatekan (#694,255)

The Singapore government argued that its rules ensures a proper and dignified person takes the presidency.

Local critics pointed out that under the criteria, Obama would not be eligible for the presidency - but Donald Trump would be (so would Elon Musk).

Rich CEO =/= presidential demeanour.

2