Lee Kuan Yew Dies

[Liberty and Linguistics]

Not everyone is sad, yes, but that doesn't entail a need to go out of the way and be deliberately offensive to those who are.

There is a time to say such things. Now definitely is not.

I'm not trying to go out of my way to be offensive; I'm speaking my honest opinion of a man who governed a nation with a set of principles and policies that I very much revile. I'm not trying to be shocking, I'm not making fun of the situation - I'm just contesting the notion that we should be speaking uncritically of a very oppressive leader just because he recently died. Also, this isn't specifically a memorial thread - it's a news item with the OP asking people their thoughts.

Because seriously, what kind of person would say things like that on a memorial thread, of all places? Surely it cannot hurt to contain such an opinion for a while?

The kind of person whose rights would be violated under Lee Kuan Yew's regime?

Don't act as if Kuan Yew was some authoritarian monster, as that is dishonest.

[Sebastianbourg]

Don't act as if Kuan Yew was some authoritarian monster, as that is dishonest.

I don't understand why people are comparing him to fascist dictators! He was an authoritarian but decent leader who brought prosperity to his nation.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Don't act as if Kuan Yew was some authoritarian monster, as that is dishonest.

I don't understand why people are comparing him to fascist dictators! He was an authoritarian but decent leader who brought prosperity to his nation.

They think we Singaporeans live in some sort of Stalin-esque Big Brother totalitarian dystopia, where ritualistic caning sessions take place and criminals are hanged left, right and centre.

[Wolfenium]

Don't act as if Kuan Yew was some authoritarian monster, as that is dishonest.

I don't understand why people are comparing him to fascist dictators! He was an authoritarian but decent leader who brought prosperity to his nation.

Because some people see matters in black and white and anyone who violates their moral code is automatically considered evil?

Seriously, we know he went rounds detaining or suing political opponents. He himself admits to this and defended his decisions. But Lee is scarcely in the same level as leaders who had conducted systematic massacres in a world war. As badly as the lives he wrecked were, they were never snuffed out just for expressing contrasting political views.

[Costa Fierro]

I don't understand why people are comparing him to fascist dictators! He was an authoritarian but decent leader who brought prosperity to his nation.

They think we Singaporeans live in some sort of Stalin-esque Big Brother totalitarian dystopia, where ritualistic caning sessions take place and criminals are hanged left, right and centre.

Objectively speaking, Singapore is far more authoritarian and conservative compared with other prosperous, first world democracies. It's...weird.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I gave my thoughts elsewhere, but...

I regard him with mixed feelings. He did a fair bit to advance Singapore though he's often given way too much credit for it, but he was frankly a bit of a dictator. Fascinating figure. I approve of how he modernised Singapore and set an example, though he did act a bit tyrannical. As someone who grew up in an Asian country that quite frankly was absolute shit, Singapore was a miracle to watch. I and many other Indians went there for work or study (I didn't stay very long, more accompanying a friend who did) and it was inspirational. This is a country that worked, an Asian country that had its shit together. And it was a sign the rest of us could too.

Regardless, giant of history.

And every time a Western media outlet uses words like wise, auspicious, Confucian or inscrutable, please take a drink. You'll die.

[Calimera II]

People who hated on Thatcher and Chavez when they died now feel very sorry for this guy... the hypocrisy.

[Australian rePublic]

I have to give him credit. In a democracy, he managed to be Prime Minister from the formation of his country to the day of his death. 50 years later

[Bunkeranlage]

I don't understand why people are comparing him to fascist dictators! He was an authoritarian but decent leader who brought prosperity to his nation.

They think we Singaporeans live in some sort of Stalin-esque Big Brother totalitarian dystopia, where ritualistic caning sessions take place and criminals are hanged left, right and centre.

To quote Captain Jack Sparrow:

"Clearly, [they've] never been to Singapore."

[The Greater Aryan Race]

They think we Singaporeans live in some sort of Stalin-esque Big Brother totalitarian dystopia, where ritualistic caning sessions take place and criminals are hanged left, right and centre.

Objectively speaking, Singapore is far more authoritarian and conservative compared with other prosperous, first world democracies. It's...weird.

Perhaps that is because our government, and indirectly the public as a whole, have come to recognise that certain sacrifices have to be made to preserve our security, environment, public health and hygiene, and economic prosperity and that said prosperity, no matter how rich or educated Singaporeans get, is no barrier to criminal actions which could imperil this country, no matter how far-fetched it would seem.

Singaporeans such as myself, remember the 1964 racial riots where Chinese and Malays attacked each other with such unbridled fury, and the devastation wrought by such events. We remember the ever-looming spectre of terrorism in the 21st century and have no wish to end up suffering the same fate as Bali and Jakarta in Indonesia. We have seen how supposedly democratic and prosperous nations such as France, England and the Scandinavian countries being torn apart by racial violence and socio-economic divisions, contrary to all lip-service paid to notions of human decency and liberal freedoms.

If ensuring we do not wake up one morning to find the mob destroying our country requires the imposition of laws that might offend the sensibilities of certain groups and individuals, restrictions on so-called "universal human" rights and policies designed to break-up ghettoes and ethnic-linguistic-religious divisions, then we will continue to do so, as long as we have to.

[Zakuvia]

I visited Singapore last year during our tour, and I have to say I was very impressed. Even the people who you could tell it wasn't their job to look happy looked...well, happy. Obviously a five day stint isn't going to give me a full geopolitical bevvy of knowledge, but compared to some other 'dictatorships' we could mention, I'd like to think Mr. Yew did rather well for his people.

[Australian rePublic]

I visited Singapore last year during our tour, and I have to say I was very impressed. Even the people who you could tell it wasn't their job to look happy looked...well, happy. Obviously a five day stint isn't going to give me a full geopolitical bevvy of knowledge, but compared to some other 'dictatorships' we could mention, I'd like to think Mr. Yew did rather well for his people.

I too went to Singapore last year on a tour with my university. One of the people who I visited told me there was a huge hidden poverty problem

[Costa Fierro]

Perhaps that is because our government, and indirectly the public as a whole, have come to recognise that certain sacrifices have to be made to preserve our security, environment, public health and hygiene, and economic prosperity and that said prosperity, no matter how rich or educated Singaporeans get, is no barrier to criminal actions which could imperil this country, no matter how far-fetched it would seem.

It's like reading from a PAP pamphlet, or listening to one of their robotic politicians repeating why Singapore is an authoritarian state. What are you protecting these things from? Disparaging political views? Transparency? Homosexuals?

Singaporeans such as myself, remember the 1964 racial riots where Chinese and Malays attacked each other with such unbridled fury, and the devastation wrought by such events.

Ah yes, the old "one size fits all" excuse trotted out everyone someone asks how said authoritarianism came about. Presumably this was all due to the wise governance of the ever paternalistic father figures Singapore calls "leaders" instead of the whole transition from an island in a federation where the Chinese formed an overall minority to a newly independent state where the Chinese were now the dominant ethnic group. But you know, let bygones be bygones and don't think about questioning the status quo? As you said, it's unhygienic to question why things the way they are.

We remember the ever-looming spectre of terrorism in the 21st century and have no wish to end up suffering the same fate as Bali and Jakarta in Indonesia.

You do realize Singapore isn't unique in being "threatened" by terrorism, right? Also, not suffering the same fate as Indonesia isn't hard, as I'm sure Singapore has a well greased intelligence network dedicated to snuffing out political dissidents and rebellious politicians terrorists who hate Singapore for its sanitation.

We have seen how supposedly democratic and prosperous nations such as France, England and the Scandinavian countries being torn apart by racial violence and socio-economic divisions, contrary to all lip-service paid to notions of human decency and liberal freedoms.

This is amusing and wrong for several reasons. Firstly, "supposedly democratic". Let me make this perfectly clear. All those examples you listed are significantly more democratic than Singapore is. All of those countries have elections that actually make a difference to how the country is governed and politics aren't simply dominated by one party who does its best to make sure all political opposition isn't powerful enough to threaten its hegemony. The great thing about actual democracy and not the sham paraded about in Singapore is that, if you don't like the government, you can vote to get rid of it. It's democracy, and the will of the people, at work. And even then, if you can't wait for the elections, you can protest. When was the last time a major protest took place in Singapore, if ever?

As for "racial violence" and "socio-economic divisions", these are indeed, problems in the UK and France? But Scandinavia? When was the last time you heard of a race riot in Norway or Denmark or Finland? And even the ones in Sweden are an isolated case. This whole idea that Singapore is a beacon of hope and stability and racial harmony is bullshit.

If ensuring we do not wake up one morning to find the mob destroying our country requires the imposition of laws that might offend the sensibilities of certain groups and individuals, restrictions on so-called "universal human" rights and policies designed to break-up ghettoes and ethnic-linguistic-religious divisions, then we will continue to do so, as long as we have to.

Except that this idea that you have to "sacrifice" things in order to achieve "social and racial harmony" is a load of bullshit. I live in a prosperous, first world state. I live within a multi-ethnic, multicultural society which is a melting pot of European, Polynesian, Asian and other cultures and languages. We have one of the best qualities of life in the world. Our government is (more or less) held accountable for its actions and it respects the rights of the citizens of our country. Our press can criticize and hold the government to account, people regularly protest against government policies and are free to do so (or call referendums), people can publicly speak out against, ridicule or decry the government. Our government also recognizes the rights of minorities, has allowed same sex marriage (Singapore doesn't even allow same sex activity) and there is little, if any racism.

And as someone who lives in a free, prosperous developed nation with a stellar human rights record and good social harmony, I will unreservedly call your argument "bullshit". Once you realize that you've been conned, then you'll understand what actual freedom and democracy is.

[Bunkeranlage]

snip

I don't know if you realise this, but your "arguments" against LKY are almost entirely devoid of context. The fact that you "call bullshit" on ust about everything LKY has done is, for a lack of words, disrespectful.

Do you realise that a major reason behind Singapore's secession from Malaysia was Mr. Lee's opposition to Bumiputera, a Malaysian policy which gives Malay people special privileges over others by dint of being Malay? Do you realise that there were six major riots in Singapore leading up to its independence, two of which were motivated by racial and religious issues? Do you realise, even after the riots, that Mr. Lee had to build up the nation from Ground Zero, with no hinterland to rely on, and only the British military for defence (the presence of which lasting until 1971)?

Do you even realise that this is a memorial thread, dedicated to the late founder, and yet here you are, creating a ruckus and calling "bullshit" on other people? What sort of hatred and disrespect does it take to use a memorial thread as a platform to argue???

I wouldn't consider myself a patriot in the normal sense; in fact, to claim that I am one would be a lie. I would have opposed many of Mr. Lee's policies, had I been born during that time; even now, there are some parts of Singapore's law which I feel must be abrogated, some of which include capital punishment (which the late David Marshall also opposed, for reasons I will not go in depth with).

Yet, despite these political disagreements, I acknowledge that there is no doubt that he achieved an extremely remarkable feat; transforming a derelict, violent, defenceless and resource-less island into a metropolis with, among others, a world class airport and the second busiest port in the world (after Shanghai). The vast majority of Singaporean politicians, both PAP and Opposition, recognise this. Low Thia Khiang, the leader of the most prominent opposition party in Singapore, recognised this. Even Chee Soon Juan, who was bankrupted by libel suits and jailed for dissent, recognised this, and sent his condolences to the Lee family.

It's very easy to criticise, and very easy to point fingers. It's even easier to "call bullshit". However, can you propose a better solution? Can you propose a method to transform a defenceless, violent, voiceless, powerless, resource-less island of 2-3 million to an economic powerhouse of first world standards in forty years? Can you suggest a way in which we can quench inter-religious and interracial strife with silk gloves after six riots? Can you suggest a way to maintain law and order in a primordial and chaotic political atmosphere with a oh-say-whatever-crap-you-want attitude?

Even despite all that I just mentioned, one can already see that the nation is opening up as a whole, especially towards the LGBT community. Take the Pink Dot rallies, for example. They're allowed to rally and express their views, albeit with a restriction that only Singaporeans and Permanent Residents may participate. This is despite the fact that Section 377A has not been repealed yet.

Even so, have you ever spent a prolonged period in Singapore? Have you ever witnessed any mass exterminations? I can safely say that, having spent a year studying in the US, that I am familiar with the liberty that they speak of. I spent one year in the American education system, taking in their lessons, and even (for a time) turning into a staunch pro-American.

Can you say the same about yourself?

[The Greater Aryan Race]

It's like reading from a PAP pamphlet, or listening to one of their robotic politicians repeating why Singapore is an authoritarian state. What are you protecting these things from? Disparaging political views? Transparency? Homosexuals?

Yes obviously people who hold these views are clearly all PAP shills. How dare we entertain such opinions indeed.

And to entertain your question: political, racial and religious extremism.

Ah yes, the old "one size fits all" excuse trotted out everyone someone asks how said authoritarianism came about. Presumably this was all due to the wise governance of the ever paternalistic father figures Singapore calls "leaders" instead of the whole transition from an island in a federation where the Chinese formed an overall minority to a newly independent state where the Chinese were now the dominant ethnic group. But you know, let bygones be bygones and don't think about questioning the status quo? As you said, it's unhygienic to question why things the way they are.

Oh quit being so deliberately economical with the truth. Do you even know how the 1964 racial riots came about? Did you even know about that the riots took place in the context of the political conflict between Singapore and the central government in Malaysia over the special rights of the Malays?

Evidently you don't so I recommend you read a book and educate yourself first.

You do realize Singapore isn't unique in being "threatened" by terrorism, right? Also, not suffering the same fate as Indonesia isn't hard, as I'm sure Singapore has a well greased intelligence network dedicated to snuffing out political dissidents and rebellious politicians terrorists who hate Singapore for its sanitation.

Your point? Intelligence networks are prone to abuse. Countries all over the world from the US to South Korea have been guilty of that. On the other hand, downplaying the threat of armed terrorism, which your comment implies, is foolhardy and simplistic.

This is amusing and wrong for several reasons. Firstly, "supposedly democratic". Let me make this perfectly clear. All those examples you listed are significantly more democratic than Singapore is.

And your point being?

All of those countries have elections that actually make a difference to how the country is governed and politics aren't simply dominated by one party who does its best to make sure all political opposition isn't powerful enough to threaten its hegemony. The great thing about actual democracy and not the sham paraded about in Singapore is that, if you don't like the government, you can vote to get rid of it. It's democracy, and the will of the people, at work.

Ah yes, the good ol' "democracy is good because you can change your government" argument. As if somehow shifting in governments like some musical chair act and subjecting national policy to the whims and fancies of an irrational and uninformed electoral base is somehow better than hegemonic one-party rule.

And please, do you even realise how mutilated the democratic process is in these "liberal democratic" states you seem so fond of emulating? How many parties truly get to hold the reigns of government? One party? Two parties? Maybe three? When was the last time the UK had a ruling party that was not Conservative or Labour? Or France and it's UMP and Socialist carthwheel? Or the US's Democrat/Republican paradigm. The so-called democratic process in these countries is nothing more than the revolving door system of two/three large alternating parties. If voters don't like one then they'll vote the other. What's so democratic and fair about that eh?

And even then, if you can't wait for the elections, you can protest. When was the last time a major protest took place in Singapore, if ever?

We had a major protest in February 2013 over population and immigration fears, not to mention several rallies held to support LGBT rights. Although naturally you'd think they don't count.

As for "racial violence" and "socio-economic divisions", these are indeed, problems in the UK and France? But Scandinavia? When was the last time you heard of a race riot in Norway or Denmark or Finland? And even the ones in Sweden are an isolated case. This whole idea that Singapore is a beacon of hope and stability and racial harmony is bullshit.

[url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–09_anti-Israel_riots_in_Norway[/url]

And yes while you might not be able to comprehend it, there are racial and religious problems in the Scandinavians as well. Not just in Sweden but in Norway and Denmark as well. Parties like the Norwegian Progressive Party reflect the sentiment of the local people there.

Except that this idea that you have to "sacrifice" things in order to achieve "social and racial harmony" is a load of bullshit.

And yet the absence of any major racial riot in Singapore since 1964 renders your argument invalid.

I live in a prosperous, first world state. I live within a multi-ethnic, multicultural society which is a melting pot of European, Polynesian, Asian and other cultures and languages. We have one of the best qualities of life in the world. Our government is (more or less) held accountable for its actions and it respects the rights of the citizens of our country. Our press can criticize and hold the government to account, people regularly protest against government policies and are free to do so (or call referendums), people can publicly speak out against, ridicule or decry the government. Our government also recognizes the rights of minorities, has allowed same sex marriage (Singapore doesn't even allow same sex activity) and there is little, if any racism.

Oh please where do you live? Australia? New Zealand? I bet I could bring up numerous RL examples that disprove your claims.

And as someone who lives in a free, prosperous developed nation with a stellar human rights record and good social harmony, I will unreservedly call your argument "bullshit". Once you realize that you've been conned, then you'll understand what actual freedom and democracy is.

Spare me your moral lamentations. I have the fortune of living in a country where I have a roof over my head, the chance of a good education and the absence of any crime problem. I have the freedom to say what I say on the Internet (as evidenced here) without having to worry about being thrown in some mythical gulag of sorts. Is Singapore perfect? It's not, but I hardly see any major deprivations on a scale similar to dictators elsewhere across the world that you seem intent on bringing up. You can keep your "actual" freedom and your "democracy".

[Risottia]

IIRC he was an authoritarian dick.

Well, he did have this nasty habit of using his grip on the power to sue oppositors into bankruptcy, and let's not even talk about his policy towards families, unmarried women and non-heterosexuals. Or judicial corporal punishment.

When was the last time the UK had a ruling party that was not Conservative or Labour?

Right today.

[Janshah]

Quite a character. If he had been all nice and inoffensive, he'd never have built a nation. I don't need to agree with all his ways and personal habits to recognize the value of his legacy. Singapore has clearly beaten the averages for rate of development, stability and living conditions for its region over the last fifty years. That is the starting point for the era that comes next.

[Costa Fierro]

I don't know if you realise this, but your "arguments" against LKY are almost entirely devoid of context. The fact that you "call bullshit" on ust about everything LKY has done is, for a lack of words, disrespectful.

You've said that about every disparaging remark about LKY. Am I not allowed to discuss his legacy?

Do you realise that a major reason behind Singapore's secession from Malaysia was Mr. Lee's opposition to Bumiputera, a Malaysian policy which gives Malay people special privileges over others by dint of being Malay?

Yes. Hence why there were race riots in 1964. The funny thing is, Singapore went from being a state within a federation dominated by Malays to an independent state dominated by the Chinese.

Do you realise that there were six major riots in Singapore leading up to its independence, two of which were motivated by racial and religious issues?

And? In what way does that make Singapore "unique"?

Do you realise, even after the riots, that Mr. Lee had to build up the nation from Ground Zero, with no hinterland to rely on, and only the British military for defence (the presence of which lasting until 1971)?

"Ground zero"? So Singapore being a major trade hub even before it's independence doesn't give it an advantage than say, some random island in the middle of nowhere? It had the third highest per capita income in all of East Asia. As for "relying on only the British military", you are aware other countries also had troops stationed in Singapore during that period, right?

Do you even realise that this is a memorial thread, dedicated to the late founder, and yet here you are, creating a ruckus and calling "bullshit" on other people?

It's not a memorial thread. The OP said that we could express our thoughts on LKY. And here I am, expressing my thoughts and opinions. God forbid I say something that you don't agree with.

What sort of hatred and disrespect does it take to use a memorial thread as a platform to argue???

"Hatred and disrespect"? Seriously?

Yet, despite these political disagreements, I acknowledge that there is no doubt that he achieved an extremely remarkable feat; transforming a derelict, violent, defenceless and resource-less island into a metropolis with, among others, a world class airport and the second busiest port in the world (after Shanghai).

Considering before independence, Singapore was reasonably developed, moderately wealthy (for Asian standards) and was an important trading hub, I wouldn't consider it "derelict". It also wasn't defenceless and the only thing you seemed to get spot on was the violence.

However, can you propose a better solution?

Yes. Give the people better freedoms for speech, press, assembly and end the PAP's hegemony on political power.

Can you propose a method to transform a defenceless, violent, voiceless, powerless, resource-less island of 2-3 million to an economic powerhouse of first world standards in forty years?

Yes.

Can you suggest a way in which we can quench inter-religious and interracial strife with silk gloves after six riots?

Wow, six riots. Who gives a shit about education and tolerance when saying something remotely disparaging can earn you jail time?

Can you suggest a way to maintain law and order in a primordial and chaotic political atmosphere with a oh-say-whatever-crap-you-want attitude?

Because saying disparaging things about politicians is a bad thing, right? Does satire not exist in Singapore? Let me tell you something. I am free to say whatever I want about my government and my leaders and there is very little they can do about it. It's called "freedom of speech". Perhaps someone in the PAP can look it up online sometime.

Even despite all that I just mentioned, one can already see that the nation is opening up as a whole, especially towards the LGBT community. Take the Pink Dot rallies, for example. They're allowed to rally and express their views, albeit with a restriction that only Singaporeans and Permanent Residents may participate. This is despite the fact that Section 377A has not been repealed yet.

And? A small crowd gathering in the middle of a park somewhere, most of whom are probably LGBT people themselves, isn't indicative of a wider shift in public opinion.

Even so, have you ever spent a prolonged period in Singapore?

I've spent time in Singapore. But seriously, what does that have to do with anything?

Have you ever witnessed any mass exterminations?

Riots are not "mass exterminations". Hyperbolic much? Also, no. Our colonial government was actually fairly tame when it came to treating its native inhabitants, even if it meant confiscating vast tracts of land. Natives even had their own Parliament and got the right to vote before the settlers did.

I can safely say that, having spent a year studying in the US, that I am familiar with the liberty that they speak of. I spent one year in the American education system, taking in their lessons, and even (for a time) turning into a staunch pro-American.

You'd be better off in Singapore.

Can you say the same about yourself?

I already live in a free country. I don't need to travel oversees to experience living in a free country. I need to travel overseas to find out how fortunate to live where I live.

[Bunkeranlage]

I don't know if you realise this, but your "arguments" against LKY are almost entirely devoid of context. The fact that you "call bullshit" on ust about everything LKY has done is, for a lack of words, disrespectful.

You've said that about every disparaging remark about LKY. Am I not allowed to discuss his legacy?

Nobody said you aren't, but considering he just died, wouldn't it be better to discuss it without telling others that their opinions are bullshit?

Do you realise that a major reason behind Singapore's secession from Malaysia was Mr. Lee's opposition to Bumiputera, a Malaysian policy which gives Malay people special privileges over others by dint of being Malay?

Yes. Hence why there were race riots in 1964. The funny thing is, Singapore went from being a state within a federation dominated by Malays to an independent state dominated by the Chinese.

That isn't true; I haven't seen any program giving people special benefits because of their race.

Do you realise that there were six major riots in Singapore leading up to its independence, two of which were motivated by racial and religious issues?

And? In what way does that make Singapore "unique"?

Uh, the fact that it later became an economic powerhouse in just 40 years after said riots? I don't know?

Do you realise, even after the riots, that Mr. Lee had to build up the nation from Ground Zero, with no hinterland to rely on, and only the British military for defence (the presence of which lasting until 1971)?

"Ground zero"? So Singapore being a major trade hub even before it's independence doesn't give it an advantage than say, some random island in the middle of nowhere? 1) It had the third highest per capita income in all of East Asia. 2) As for "relying on only the British military", you are aware other countries also had troops stationed in Singapore during that period, right?

1) Sure it did, but it was still a 3rd World nation.
2) No *self sustaining* military

Do you even realise that this is a memorial thread, dedicated to the late founder, and yet here you are, creating a ruckus and calling "bullshit" on other people?

It's not a memorial thread. The OP said that we could express our thoughts on LKY. And here I am, expressing my thoughts and opinions. God forbid I say something that you don't agree with.

Fair enough.

What sort of hatred and disrespect does it take to use a memorial thread as a platform to argue???

"Hatred and disrespect"? Seriously?

See above.

Yet, despite these political disagreements, I acknowledge that there is no doubt that he achieved an extremely remarkable feat; transforming a derelict, violent, defenceless and resource-less island into a metropolis with, among others, a world class airport and the second busiest port in the world (after Shanghai).

Considering before independence, Singapore was reasonably developed, moderately wealthy (for Asian standards) and was an important trading hub, I wouldn't consider it "derelict". It also wasn't defenceless and the only thing you seemed to get spot on was the violence.

Eh, let's not take into account the squatters, the terrible state of healthcare, the stinky Singapore River and so on.

However, can you propose a better solution?

Yes. Give the people better freedoms for speech, press, assembly and end the PAP's hegemony on political power.

I meant for the period of time following independence.

Let's see you do that when everybody's on the verge of killing each other over racial/religious matters.

Can you propose a method to transform a defenceless, violent, voiceless, powerless, resource-less island of 2-3 million to an economic powerhouse of first world standards in forty years?

Yes.

Pray tell.

Can you suggest a way in which we can quench inter-religious and interracial strife with silk gloves after six riots?

Wow, six riots. Who gives a shit about education and tolerance when saying something remotely disparaging can earn you jail time?

Consider the context, where we have 4 to 5 major ethnic groups and over 10 religions crammed into a tiny island of 714 square km.

Can you suggest a way to maintain law and order in a primordial and chaotic political atmosphere with a oh-say-whatever-crap-you-want attitude?

Because saying disparaging things about politicians is a bad thing, right? Does satire not exist in Singapore?

Clearly you've not read the comics section in the Straits Times.

Let me tell you something. I am free to say whatever I want about my government and my leaders and there is very little they can do about it. It's called "freedom of speech". Perhaps someone in the PAP can look it up online sometime.

Again, consider the context in which such laws were implemented; barely out of merger, riots everywhere, numerous types of people crammed together, etc.

Even despite all that I just mentioned, one can already see that the nation is opening up as a whole, especially towards the LGBT community. Take the Pink Dot rallies, for example. They're allowed to rally and express their views, albeit with a restriction that only Singaporeans and Permanent Residents may participate. This is despite the fact that Section 377A has not been repealed yet.

And? A small crowd gathering in the middle of a park somewhere, most of whom are probably LGBT people themselves, isn't indicative of a wider shift in public opinion.

So? You insinuate that protests and demonstrations don't happen because of an absence of free speech; I show otherwise.

Even so, have you ever spent a prolonged period in Singapore?

I've spent time in Singapore. But seriously, what does that have to do with anything?

Because it sounds like many of the people comparing Singapore to the DPRK and such have never spent any time here.

Have you ever witnessed any mass exterminations?

Riots are not "mass exterminations". Hyperbolic much? Also, no. Our colonial government was actually fairly tame when it came to treating its native inhabitants, even if it meant confiscating vast tracts of land. Natives even had their own Parliament and got the right to vote before the settlers did.

That's not what I meant.

I can safely say that, having spent a year studying in the US, that I am familiar with the liberty that they speak of. I spent one year in the American education system, taking in their lessons, and even (for a time) turning into a staunch pro-American.

You'd be better off in Singapore.

I've had intentions to migrate every now and then; I might just go study in Germany, where university is free.

Can you say the same about yourself?

I already live in a free country. I don't need to travel oversees to experience living in a free country. I need to travel overseas to find out how fortunate to live where I live.

Let me guess… America?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Lee Kuan Yew was a very important figure of history: although restrictions on press and corporal punishment is something that would attract greater public backlash today especially with the likes of the Internet, he definitely helped the economic transformation of a small city state... although I've been told by a waiter at the Restaurant de Roode Leeuw in Amsterdam that it my be easier to run a country with a smaller land size without busting the budget, probably because you wouldn't have to build so many long distance routes. Not that large countries are a bad thing: it's just more challenging to run.

Now I can see how Lee Kuan Yew got Singapore's economy spot on.

[Allegan County]

Don't act as if Kuan Yew was some authoritarian monster, as that is dishonest.

I don't understand why people are comparing him to fascist dictators! He was an authoritarian but decent leader who brought prosperity to his nation.

It's only okay when those authoritarian leaders are people like Fidel Castro or Josip Tito, for example.

[Mapletish]

Well before we go down in a spiral tunnel of no return in your views of Singapore and what not, here's a simple note.
Is it wrong to be a authoritative figure or to be a paternalistic leader? Is it wrong to use a "one size fits all" excuse or excessive propaganda to prove your point and to explain political and social stability that Singapore has experienced in the last 50 years? Is it then also wrong to implement policies that people may find uncomfortable or controversial but necessary for a small nation like Singapore? This is not a PAP pamphlet or a party propaganda machine but really things to think about. Sure, this small island nation may not be the most "democratic" or a "heaven for social and racial harmony", but as evident in the Singapore National Pledge or the oath of allegiance to Singapore, we know that we have not achieve such things yet but we are working towards them or at least trying to, building a country "regardless of race, language or religion," or "to build a democratic society". Surely there are things Singapore has not been doing well in certain expects, like the widening income gap or minority rights and a whole lot of debate about the government withholding Singaporeans' retirement funds, sabotaging opposition constituencies or the whole lot debate about Group Representation Constituency etc but we ought to understand that nothing is perfect in this world.

Once you realize that you've been conned, then you'll understand what actual freedom and democracy is.

It is not whether Singaporeans are being conned or not or are Singaporeans not understanding the meaning of freedom and democracy, it is the choice of the people, clearly you haven't seen people in Singapore discussing politics in coffee shops because they sound just as crude as uneducated British or American men and as critical as ever, so are you saying they have not understood their "freedom" yet?

Do you realise that there were six major riots in Singapore leading up to its independence, two of which were motivated by racial and religious issues?

And? In what way does that make Singapore "unique"?

Nah, it is does not make Singapore unique but it is unique to Singapore not unless you take into account that these riots can ruin Singapore's survival in just a matter of weeks.

Let me tell you something. I am free to say whatever I want about my government and my leaders and there is very little they can do about it. It's called "freedom of speech". Perhaps someone in the PAP can look it up online sometime.

If the Singapore government runs the country of that size, I would dare say "there is very little they (Singapore government) can do about it.

Let me wrap this up by saying, everyone has their opinions on different issues and it is their "liberty" to speak of to express them but we also have to be sensitive and sensible at times to exercise that "liberty" of ours, after all the "liberty" that we are talking about has no concrete set of rules to follow, what makes a country truly "liberal" that's for you to decide and how we perceive it to be, same as how a country is "authoritative" or too "authoritative" in that matter. Before we can come to any conclusion, we must understand that nothing in this world is perfect and as for the " ... free, prosperous developed nation with a stellar human rights record and good social harmony," country that you live in, that is how you perceive it to be right? And I'm sure not everything there is perfect, that is what Singapore is like as well.

Well, we must all admit, any political leader is just doing what they have to do (minus the negative aspects). At the very least let us show some respect for someone who has dedicated his life to building a nation.

[MERIZoC]

Oh yes, Mr. "Asian Values". Truly, a wonderful and compassionate leader.

[Greater Mackonia]

The greatest politician of the 20th century, perhaps only rivaled by Stalin in his genius. I am genuinely sorrowful at his passing.

[Australian rePublic]

Has anybody criticising PAP actually been to Singapore?
Yes, LKY may have oppressed some freedoms (such as chewing gum) for the sake of being a clean-freak, which is quite stupid reasoning, but atleast he actually he actually gave a shit about his people and his country. Sure, Singapore has a massive hidden poverty problem, but if you compare how Singapore was 50 years ago to now, you woud commend LKY. He turned SG from a wannabe laughing stock of a nation trying desperatelly to gain indipendance from Britian and Malaysia (and recognition from the rest of the world) to a prosperous, developed nation which is a leader in businees, in a period of only 50 years, which is extremely impressive. Sure, he wasn't perfect, but in such a short time period, perfection is impossible