China bullies Hong Kong

[Sir Matt]

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong...ections-tsunami-disaffection-washes-over-city

Pro-democracy candidates won all but one council and picked up roughly 390 out of 452 seats.

 

[Champagne Football]

China's plan backfired badly

 

[mu4c_20le]

It only took six months of burning down their own city to get the young people interested in politics. They should have just done this from the start, this is democracy, not holding your city hostage and making a list of demands.

 

[Champagne Football]

It only took six months of burning down their own city to get the young people interested in politics. They should have just done this from the start, this is democracy, not holding your city hostage and making a list of demands.

There would never have been any protests at all, had China not undemocratically introduced the extradition bill last April, so don't really get your point at all.

 

[mu4c_20le]

There would never have been any protests at all, had China not undemocratically introduced the extradition bill last April, so don't really get your point at all.

They suspended it a month later, then withdrew it completely. This is far beyond the extradition bill.

 

[maniak]

They suspended it a month later, then withdrew it completely. This is far beyond the extradition bill.

Yes it is and good for them.

 

[mu4c_20le]

Yes it is and good for them.

Why?

 

[maniak]

Why?

Because they want change and found the necessary momentum to at least have a chance of getting it. If I was in danger of being slowly absorbed by one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes on earth I'd fight too.

 

[Adisa]

How does Emperor Xi deal with this?

 

[mu4c_20le]

Because they want change and found the necessary momentum to at least have a chance of getting it. If I was in danger of being slowly absorbed by one of the most brutal and oppressive regimes on earth I'd fight too.

Fair enough. I don't agree with some of their methods and feel they went a bit too far, especially since we are still quite far way from 2040 or 2050 which is when the full takeover is supposed to happen, then that sort of fear would be understandable. Casting your vote is one of the best ways to express yourself in a civil, democratic society. I think the election results made a much bigger impact than any of the violent events that occurred in the last couple of weeks.

 

[maniak]

Fair enough. I don't agree with some of their methods and feel they went a bit too far, especially since we are still quite far way from 2040 or 2050 which is when the full takeover is supposed to happen, then that sort of fear would be understandable. Casting your vote is one of the best ways to express yourself in a civil, democratic society. I think the election results made a much bigger impact than any of the violent events that occurred in the last couple of weeks.

Maybe, but it seems plausible to suggest these election results only happened because of the protests. Nobody likes violence and people getting hurt, but sometimes that's the price to pay for something positive to happen, in this particular scenario I think it's a price worth paying.

China is not a democratic society, so I don't think we can measure things as simply as that. If you were telling me about the yellow vests in France for example, I would agree because they actually have a democratic process in place to achieve what they want without using violence. Sometimes that isn't possible.

And these protests achieved something that can't be measured immediately. For example, I had never seen the portuguese TV focusing on human rights abuse in China, but since these protests started I've seen reports about the uyghur cultural genocide, about people disappearing after criticizing the government in social media, about how powerless are the officials elected through democratic processes. I would bet that without the protests there wouldn't have been any of these reports. Who knows if it will have an actual effect, but I can't for a minute criticize those fighting for a better future, even if sometimes there's violence.

 

[mu4c_20le]

Maybe, but it seems plausible to suggest these election results only happened because of the protests. Nobody likes violence and people getting hurt, but sometimes that's the price to pay for something positive to happen, in this particular scenario I think it's a price worth paying.

China is not a democratic society, so I don't think we can measure things as simply as that. If you were telling me about the yellow vests in France for example, I would agree because they actually have a democratic process in place to achieve what they want without using violence. Sometimes that isn't possible.

Hong Kong isn't China though, it is one of the freest cities in the world. They enjoy freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a fair judicial process, low crime rate and corruption. The extradition bill is the first time their autonomy is challenged, and they should have adopted a more measured tone in their protests after the government backed down on the bill. They've made their point.

And these protests achieved something that can't be measured immediately. For example, I had never seen the portuguese TV focusing on human rights abuse in China, but since these protests started I've seen reports about the uyghur cultural genocide, about people disappearing after criticizing the government in social media, about how powerless are the officials elected through democratic processes. I would bet that without the protests there wouldn't have been any of these reports. Who knows if it will have an actual effect, but I can't for a minute criticize those fighting for a better future, even if sometimes there's violence.

That's interesting, because the uyghur issue has been around for years, but it seems to have been pushed back by the huawei affair and the trade war with Trump. Now there is a reason to bring it to the spotlight again. Protesting is a part of democratic society and I definitely support their right to protest, such as the Occupy movement in 2014, but the rioting and xenophobic attacks is going too far just to try and gain more freedoms, and more autonomy than they already enjoy.

 

[Sir Matt]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Any of those protest leaders who were still in Hong Kong are now in prison, and the CCP has been attacking those who managed to escape before.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[11101]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

It's over I'm afraid. China will not back down and slowly people will have to either accept it or leave, sad as that is.

My old office is in that picture

 

[Sir Matt]

It's over I'm afraid. China will not back down and slowly people will have to either accept it or leave, sad as that is.

My old office is in that picture

Yeah. In another 10-20 years, the people left in Hong Kong will be fully indoctrinated like the people in mainland China to believe that it must be this way. The US, UK, and others have a responsibility to take in whoever is able to leave.

 

[TwoSheds]

Yeah. In another 10-20 years, the people left in Hong Kong will be fully indoctrinated like the people in mainland China to believe that it must be this way. The US, UK, and others have a responsibility to take in whoever is able to leave.

Maybe. China is struggling with population growth/ageing because they're working their young people to death (even more so than in the west) and they don't have the time or money for kids. If they want to reverse that trend they might have to back off on their working culture at some point and we might find that they have more time to think about their lives and government if that happens. Or the crackdown on dissent might continue with the progress of ever more authoritarian tech, who knows. I don't think there's any guarantees in this one though!

 

[DoomSlayer]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Any of those protest leaders who were still in Hong Kong are now in prison, and the CCP has been attacking those who managed to escape before.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

History never fails to repeat itself. The 21st century is just starting and we might see how similar it will be to the previous one. Might have to work on my survival skills, just in case.

 

[Pronewbie]

I dated a young HK girl who moved to Singapore recently because of the protests and "suppression of democracy". I told her how China's system of governance is basically a copy of Singapore's and she was genuinely surprised.

While the revision of history from 1 lopsided Western version to another (pro-China) should be scrutinised and criticised, I can't help but see the paradox in what they are fighting for.

The British never gave them democracy, and their housing woes + high cost of living stem from their very own tycoons screwing them over. So to lump all these frustrations and blame China puzzles my rational brain.

Having lived through the Singapore system, I know if China were to intervene in HK more directly, the housing crisis for the younger population would be largely alleviated within 5 years. Then there's the greater bay area strategy which has lost a bit of its lustre because of the protests and then covid-19.

Few years ago, I know of many MNCs who planned to invest or move to HK for more access to China. The protests and then covid-19 have scuppered some of these plans. The losers will be the common HK folk like the girl who came to Singapore to work ironically for a Chinese company.

This debate between a Pro-democracy and Pro-China HKer reinforces my view:

 

[Foxbatt]

Pronewbie, I do not know where you are from but I started going to HK in the early 80s. It was even then expensive and full of people. Yes I started going to SIN at around the same time and lived there for a while. Under LKY, there was no freedom in SIN. The opposition guy was always in Jail. Actually you could get fined or jailed then for jaywalking. I had a friend(foreign) who ended up in the Police station for crossing the street in Orchard Road without waiting for the pedestrian crossing light. As you know Chinese may be the same ethnicity but there are very different. I was in Shanghai before the covid and there was a tour group from some other part of China and the Chinese who with me were having a go at them too.
You are right about the tycoons and the properties in HK. The reason why life is so tough in HK is mainly because it is so expensive to live there.

 

[Pronewbie]

Pronewbie, I do not know where you are from but I started going to HK in the early 80s. It was even then expensive and full of people. Yes I started going to SIN at around the same time and lived there for a while. Under LKY, there was no freedom in SIN. The opposition guy was always in Jail. Actually you could get fined or jailed then for jaywalking. I had a friend(foreign) who ended up in the Police station for crossing the street in Orchard Road without waiting for the pedestrian crossing light. As you know Chinese may be the same ethnicity but there are very different. I was in Shanghai before the covid and there was a tour group from some other part of China and the Chinese who with me were having a go at them too.
You are right about the tycoons and the properties in HK. The reason why life is so tough in HK is mainly because it is so expensive to live there.

There was hardly any political freedom in Singapore until the widespread adoption of the Internet. When I was younger I shared similar views with the young HK democracy protesters. However, looking at how toxic the majority of Western democracy has turned out, the mediocre leaders it churns out, and the inability to get things done speedily, I'm more thankful for the Singapore system.

We are, ironically, at the juncture of becoming a mature democracy and I do not want our system to become like what I see in the UK, US and Australia. Hopefully we can innovative or copy a system that works for us. One that encourages collaboration and healthy competition.

A lot of the West misunderstands China the way they did Singapore. But we are a small country so while there were regular lectures and mocking, we were largely left to quietly achieve what we have. China has proven that our system of governance scales well and works amazingly for underdeveloped countries to prosper as long as the government is competent.

There are plenty of clues in Singapore if you want to know how China will develop politically and socially over the next decades.

 

[Desert Eagle]

However toxic western democracy is or may become , their people have the fundamental rights of free speech and free expression. China apart from mass persecution of their own people is also supporting military scum in North Korea, Thailand and Myanmar. Those that resist either end up dead or in jail. Easy to talk about amazing systems of governance that scale well when it's not your life, rights and freedoms being trampled on for the supposed greater good ( that just happens to coincide with those that are in power never relinquishing it)

 

[Pronewbie]

However toxic western democracy is or may become , their people have the fundamental rights of free speech and free expression. China apart from mass persecution of their own people is also supporting military scum in North Korea, Thailand and Myanmar. Those that resist either end up dead or in jail. Easy to talk about amazing systems of governance that scale well when it's not your life, rights and freedoms being trampled on for the supposed greater good ( that just happens to coincide with those that are in power never relinquishing it)

You speak with the same mainstream misconceptions and propaganda the West had of Singapore. Except the propaganda is more intense because of the US's toxic geopolitical attempts to prevent China's rise.

I was referring to internal policies and governance, not geopolitics which is a completely different kettle of fish and one that no country can claim to have a higher moral ground as they do what they think is best for their people.

There is no need to speak for the Chinese people when the vast majority of them are happy with their government and believe they have "fundamental rights of free speech and free expression", same as it was in Singapore in the early stages of development. This is what happens when you are able to pull 70% of your people out of poverty within 30 years with a largely meritocratic system, and promptly act on the complaints of the people on their local government. As their society progresses organically, there will be increasing signs of democracy.

By the way, for all the hype on democracy, most western nations did not rise to power because of it. It was more a result of great socio-economic progress. I do not see great results of poorly developed countries practising democracy early on.

So while I can see your point of view and think that the Western model may have a possibility to work for undeveloped nations, I also find it useful for people to have an open mind and look at the other side of the coin. Basically, one size does not fit all.

 

[Desert Eagle]

You speak with the same mainstream misconceptions and propaganda the West had of Singapore. Except the propaganda is more intense because of the US's toxic geopolitical attempts to prevent China's rise.

I was referring to internal policies and governance, not geopolitics which is a completely different kettle of fish and one that no country can claim to have a higher moral ground as they do what they think is best for their people.

There is no need to speak for the Chinese people when the vast majority of them are happy with their government and believe they have "fundamental rights of free speech and free expression", same as it was in Singapore in the early stages of development. This is what happens when you are able to pull 70% of your people out of poverty within 30 years with a largely meritocratic system, and promptly act on the complaints of the people on their local government. As their society progresses organically, there will be increasing signs of democracy.

By the way, for all the hype on democracy, most western nations did not rise to power because of it. It was more a result of great socio-economic progress. I do not see great results of poorly developed countries practising democracy early on.

So while I can see your point of view and think that the Western model may have a possibility to work for undeveloped nations, I also find it useful for people to have an open mind and look at the other side of the coin. Basically, one size does not fit all.

What the vast majority believe and what reality is are two different things. The vast majority of people also believe in a fairy tale God figure doesn't make it any more true.
You are free to put economic progress above all and call a one party system largely meritocracy but I could just as easily say you speak with the same misconceptions and propaganda as the Chinese state. I'm under no illusions that the US or the west are the good guys. Their history of carpet bombing and expansionist military policies is well known. However just like those in east Europe are most concerned with Russias criminal activity, myself as someone in China's sphere of influence am more concerned with them. Anyways like you say this is geopolitics stuff and your point is more about systems of governance.

I think you mistake power of the state as a goal of democracy, its actually power of the individual and the restraint on the powers of the state. People wherever they are born should have an opportunity to make their political case and have the chance to access levers of power.

Is democracy the best option, one size fits all as you call it , from a game theory perspective probably not. But to me it is the most "fair" option.

 

[Sky1981]

What the vast majority believe and what reality is are two different things. The vast majority of people also believe in a fairy tale God figure doesn't make it any more true.
You are free to put economic progress above all and call a one party system largely meritocracy but I could just as easily say you speak with the same misconceptions and propaganda as the Chinese state. I'm under no illusions that the US or the west are the good guys. Their history of carpet bombing and expansionist military policies is well known. However just like those in east Europe are most concerned with Russias criminal activity, myself as someone in China's sphere of influence am more concerned with them. Anyways like you say this is geopolitics stuff and your point is more about systems of governance.

I think you mistake power of the state as a goal of democracy, its actually power of the individual and the restraint on the powers of the state. People wherever they are born should have an opportunity to make their political case and have the chance to access levers of power.

Is democracy the best option, one size fits all as you call it , from a game theory perspective probably not. But to me it is the most "fair" option.

It's fair.

But fair is not always the best. Democracy is only as good as the candidates offered. If Pol pot and Stalin goes into a 100% clean democratic election it doesn't mean the end game is going to be good. Hitler was democratically elected anyway. If the aim is social and collective prosperity then the one that comes up with the cleanest and sincerest political power and leader is the best (although such a power is non existence in real world)

China has the luxury of having a pro people government, hence it's better if they're not meddle with 5 years bipartisanship. On the contrary it's thankful that the US has a bipartisanship otherwise the GOP would be in power forever. Singapore has the luck of having LKY as their early leaders, on some other hands they could ended up as failed state like East Timor. And the outside world arent the best judge of the local situation, if the meritocracy transform into autocracy or tyranny their citizen can revolt, just like they did so many times in history. As long as the people are happy, who are we to judge. The west propaganda doesn't work on China mainland citizen because they're happy, if they're not happy there's no military than can handle 1bn people protesting. They're more than capable of toppling the CCP if the needs arise.

So, it's not as simple as which system is better, both can work, both can "cannot" work. It really depends on what's the option.

This concept might seems alien to the western world which I'd say quite homogenic in demography (white majority, BAME), but in so many nations democracy would be impossible in practice due to the vast difference in demograhy. In India there's like 50 political party each with their own agenda, whoever win the election must compromised. I can't talk much about India, but in Indonesia we have thousands of tribes, several very fundamentally different state, Christian vs Muslim majority state, Minorities vs. Majorities, Liberal vs Syariah etc. It's very hard to progress as a nation when bipartisanship runs amok, whoever won the election would be tackled and blocked and they can't get anything done. Compared to 32 years under the dictator Soeharto, our progress as a nation is way faster and more planned and stabil, although it does comes with its own price of rampant corruption. If given the options, even with crystal balls, I doubt even 70% would prefer democracy, if Soeharto somehow magically becomes a legitimate options there's a big chance he'd win.

As for me? as a minority I just want safety first and foremost, equal treatment at least constitutionally, no targeted hate crime, and some freedom although it's relative. Freedom for me is I can use FB, the Internet, I can go to church on Sunday, I'll never ever going to be fully 100% free to air anything sensitive (against Islam, against Majorities, etc), those would be met with jail time and at times mass violence. Just like Black people can't specifically shout they hate white, good luck with that. Not that I have a problem with the majority, I think they're fair but there are certain issues you don't touch. Do I aspire French like freedom? 100% nope. French freedom of speech is only good if you're the majority, if you're the minority you will need to be protected from freedom of speech, otherwise the majority will have a field day picking your bones apart. French freedom of speech is good if you're Christian, if you're Muslim... then tough luck.

 

[Pronewbie]

What the vast majority believe and what reality is are two different things. The vast majority of people also believe in a fairy tale God figure doesn't make it any more true.
You are free to put economic progress above all and call a one party system largely meritocracy but I could just as easily say you speak with the same misconceptions and propaganda as the Chinese state. I'm under no illusions that the US or the west are the good guys. Their history of carpet bombing and expansionist military policies is well known. However just like those in east Europe are most concerned with Russias criminal activity, myself as someone in China's sphere of influence am more concerned with them. Anyways like you say this is geopolitics stuff and your point is more about systems of governance.

I think you mistake power of the state as a goal of democracy, its actually power of the individual and the restraint on the powers of the state. People wherever they are born should have an opportunity to make their political case and have the chance to access levers of power.

Is democracy the best option, one size fits all as you call it , from a game theory perspective probably not. But to me it is the most "fair" option.

No system is perfect and you have professed your preference for individualism and absolute free-speech. I was the same up till my 20s. I was even failed in one of my university module for arguing in an essay that the media in Singapore should be a watch-dog instead of a puppy-dog.

The Singapore/China system is a potent blend of both. This is my preference. Balance. Interestingly, you can see China in recent times slowly shaking off the heavy reliance on the state by letting their unproductive State-Owned Enterprises fail - something Western investors never thought would happen. This change, however, is going to take generations as China's recent history is way less individualistic than Singapore's ever was.

A huge negative of such a system - and you are right - is that such a system may not allow for a complete opposite political party in the early years. Those who overwhelmingly believe in democracy and complete freedom of speech (Western/Indian politician style) and do not believe in such a system usually leave for the West. Some end up as political exiles or prisoners. This is an unfortunate by-product of the system. During the phase of rapid growth, people are willing to turn a blind eye as long as they see the socio-economic rewards. FYI, this is what I was completely against up till recent years after observing major Western democracies. I still think it's wrong to have political prisoners but neither have I thought of a better solution.

However, do not conflate this with meritocracy and anti-corruption - key variables for this system to flourish. In China and Singapore's meritocracy, anyone has the opportunity to rise up the ranks and have access to all levers of power if they are truly capable. You also have cases where corrupted officials are given hefty jail sentences or sent to be hung. The moment people no longer believe in the system is when it will fall like a house of cards. That's where hopefully healthy democracy has been established as society progresses. Interestingly, the major alternative party in Singapore has explicitly stated that if they were to win in the next election, they would still let the incumbent run the government as they find their feet. This is something that appeals to the silent majority. So this perhaps can be a cue on how China's political landscape will evolve over time, where perhaps the CCP stays but the people get to vote on their leader.

Anyway, it's really hard for me to present what I believe to be balanced views when it comes to China these days especially on Western channels because of the bombardment of anti-China news by America and its allies. I used to believe all of it until I decided to dig deeper quite recently. If I had a dollar for every net negatively-tinted article/video on China, I'd be a millionaire. Yet, despite multiple pronouncements on the fall of China, the US now sees China as a threat on their hegemony. Trump has been an unmitigated disaster for the US as he opened the eyes of many in APAC on "western democracy" and withdrew the US from win-win trade pacts - allowing China to be our main economic partner.

Interestingly, I just had a timely documentary recommended to me on YouTube which probably shows how well-tracked my activities on Google services are. I thought the summary was apt and suited for our discussion:

I also realise I have gone completely off-tangent on the thread topic so apologies on that and I will end here.

 

[Pronewbie]

It's fair.

But fair is not always the best. Democracy is only as good as the candidates offered. If Pol pot and Stalin goes into a 100% clean democratic election it doesn't mean the end game is going to be good. Hitler was democratically elected anyway. If the aim is social and collective prosperity then the one that comes up with the cleanest and sincerest political power and leader is the best (although such a power is non existence in real world)

China has the luxury of having a pro people government, hence it's better if they're not meddle with 5 years bipartisanship. On the contrary it's thankful that the US has a bipartisanship otherwise the GOP would be in power forever. Singapore has the luck of having LKY as their early leaders, on some other hands they could ended up as failed state like East Timor. And the outside world arent the best judge of the local situation, if the meritocracy transform into autocracy or tyranny their citizen can revolt, just like they did so many times in history. As long as the people are happy, who are we to judge. The west propaganda doesn't work on China mainland citizen because they're happy, if they're not happy there's no military than can handle 1bn people protesting. They're more than capable of toppling the CCP if the needs arise.

So, it's not as simple as which system is better, both can work, both can "cannot" work. It really depends on what's the option.

This concept might seems alien to the western world which I'd say quite homogenic in demography (white majority, BAME), but in so many nations democracy would be impossible in practice due to the vast difference in demograhy. In India there's like 50 political party each with their own agenda, whoever win the election must compromised. I can't talk much about India, but in Indonesia we have thousands of tribes, several very fundamentally different state, Christian vs Muslim majority state, Minorities vs. Majorities, Liberal vs Syariah etc. It's very hard to progress as a nation when bipartisanship runs amok, whoever won the election would be tackled and blocked and they can't get anything done. Compared to 32 years under the dictator Soeharto, our progress as a nation is way faster and more planned and stabil, although it does comes with its own price of rampant corruption. If given the options, even with crystal balls, I doubt even 70% would prefer democracy, if Soeharto somehow magically becomes a legitimate options there's a big chance he'd win.

As for me? as a minority I just want safety first and foremost, equal treatment at least constitutionally, no targeted hate crime, and some freedom although it's relative. Freedom for me is I can use FB, the Internet, I can go to church on Sunday, I'll never ever going to be fully 100% free to air anything sensitive (against Islam, against Majorities, etc), those would be met with jail time and at times mass violence. Just like Black people can't specifically shout they hate white, good luck with that. Not that I have a problem with the majority, I think they're fair but there are certain issues you don't touch. Do I aspire French like freedom? 100% nope. French freedom of speech is only good if you're the majority, if you're the minority you will need to be protected from freedom of speech, otherwise the majority will have a field day picking your bones apart. French freedom of speech is good if you're Christian, if you're Muslim... then tough luck.

Well put, except I used to believe what the world told me - that Singapore only succeeded because of its small size and strong founding leadership. China has been an eye-opener and now with my knowledge of Rwanda copying our system I'd love to follow their progress.

I'm a huge fan of Charlie Munger and it's no wonder he has a bust of Lee Kuan Yew in his home.

 

[VorZakone]

Well put, except I used to believe what the world told me - that Singapore only succeeded because of its small size and strong founding leadership. China has been an eye-opener and now with my knowledge of Rwanda copying our system I'd love to follow their progress.

I'm a huge fan of Charlie Munger and it's no wonder he has a bust of Lee Kuan Yew in his home.

What specific system do you mean here?

 

[Pronewbie]

What specific system do you mean here?

The Singapore model of governance. It's covered briefly in the video I embedded earlier.

 

[Foxbatt]

However toxic western democracy is or may become , their people have the fundamental rights of free speech and free expression. China apart from mass persecution of their own people is also supporting military scum in North Korea, Thailand and Myanmar. Those that resist either end up dead or in jail. Easy to talk about amazing systems of governance that scale well when it's not your life, rights and freedoms being trampled on for the supposed greater good ( that just happens to coincide with those that are in power never relinquishing it)

A bit of ignorance here about Thailand. Thailand has always been backed by the USA. All the military governments including the current one.
They even has bases in Thailand. All military hardware and training is from the USA.

 

[Sky1981]

Well put, except I used to believe what the world told me - that Singapore only succeeded because of its small size and strong founding leadership. China has been an eye-opener and now with my knowledge of Rwanda copying our system I'd love to follow their progress.

I'm a huge fan of Charlie Munger and it's no wonder he has a bust of Lee Kuan Yew in his home.

Singapore system isn't unique or out of the box.

It's basically an authoritarian state dictatorship, just that the dictator happens to be virtuous and actually very good. Decades under LKY has made sure that Singapore was build on clean government culture and that corruption is a very frowned upon and extremely rare occurrences, although being small and easily managed helps.

They say that it's hard to build a culture, but once set it's hard to erase as well. Singapore has a very strong anti corruption culture, whoever next after LKY would pretty much in the same mould.

 

[maniak]

If the chinese system were any good the CCP wouldn't be afraid of elections and freedom. The fact they put people who disagree with them in jail should tell you everything you need to know about how good the system is.

 

[Foxbatt]

Singapore system isn't unique or out of the box.

It's basically an authoritarian state dictatorship, just that the dictator happens to be virtuous and actually very good. Decades under LKY has made sure that Singapore was build on clean government culture and that corruption is a very frowned upon and extremely rare occurrences, although being small and easily managed helps.

They say that it's hard to build a culture, but once set it's hard to erase as well. Singapore has a very strong anti corruption culture, whoever next after LKY would pretty much in the same mould.

LKY has been dead for a while now. Yes it's the anti corruption culture but it's also used to be a meritocracy. That allows them to plan years ahead and not just for the next 5 years.
Also you are free to do what you want to do if you don't get involved in politics or do something that causes damage to the society as a whole. The chewing gum incident comes to mind.

 

[Sky1981]

LKY has been dead for a while now. Yes it's the anti corruption culture but it's also used to be a meritocracy. That allows them to plan years ahead and not just for the next 5 years.
Also you are free to do what you want to do if you don't get involved in politics or do something that causes damage to the society as a whole. The chewing gum incident comes to mind.

What's freedom?

People really have a weird concept about Freedom. I feel very free in Singapore (Worked there for 2 years). I could be gay, muslim, christian, lesbian, etc. Nobody's going to disturb me, nobody would even have the guts to insult me due to how strict they take their "be nice" policy. It's the most free state I've been. They even have their president on a "this year it's X race's turn" basis. What's not to love?

 

[Desert Eagle]

A bit of ignorance here about Thailand. Thailand has always been backed by the USA. All the military governments including the current one.
They even has bases in Thailand. All military hardware and training is from the USA.

Thailands royalty and military have long standing ties to America but under the current junta China's influence has grown much greater. All military hardware is not from America. Thailand just ordered three obsolete( or soon to be) submarines from China recently amongst plenty of other tanks etc ( the majority is American )Thailands economy is tethered to Chinese interests ( much more during the past 7 years) and the junta only cares about money and power so you can imagine why it's a marriage made in hell.

 

[Pronewbie]

Singapore system isn't unique or out of the box.

It's basically an authoritarian state dictatorship, just that the dictator happens to be virtuous and actually very good. Decades under LKY has made sure that Singapore was build on clean government culture and that corruption is a very frowned upon and extremely rare occurrences, although being small and easily managed helps.

They say that it's hard to build a culture, but once set it's hard to erase as well. Singapore has a very strong anti corruption culture, whoever next after LKY would pretty much in the same mould.

Yes you are right when talking about the political system. I was also referring to some of the key policies including some you've already mentioned:
1. Strong, positive leadership
2. Anti-corruption
3. Meritocracy
4. Proactivity in attracting FDI and talent
5. Blend of SOE and private enterprises in key sectors/functions
6. Heavy investment and focus on education
7. Almost non-existent social safety net
8. Paternal and strict laws (the general population sees it as a plus)
9. Affordable housing
10. Modern infrastructure

 

[Desert Eagle]

LKY has been dead for a while now. Yes it's the anti corruption culture but it's also used to be a meritocracy. That allows them to plan years ahead and not just for the next 5 years.
Also you are free to do what you want to do if you don't get involved in politics or do something that causes damage to the society as a whole. The chewing gum incident comes to mind.

That's not called freedom anywhere in the civilized world. Political rights are a part of basic human rights.

 

[Pronewbie]

That's not called freedom anywhere in the civilized world. Political rights are a part of basic human rights.

Our society have progressed to the stage where we now have pretty much full political rights. We can openly slam and mock our government's poor handling of issues such as the resurgence of COVID-19 in the country via their own social media pages. However, it is clear at this stage that the general population do not wish to have the kind of toxic nonsense seen in the US, for example, with their identity politics (Fox vs CNN) and constant smearing with outright lies.

There is a difference between political rights and constant political proselytising. Sometimes I think the West focuses too much on the latter when clearly other factors are equally, if not, more important. We just do what we've got to do and as long as we see the results and enjoy the benefits, we move.

 

[Desert Eagle]

No system is perfect and you have professed your preference for individualism and absolute free-speech. I was the same up till my 20s. I was even failed in one of my university module for arguing in an essay that the media in Singapore should be a watch-dog instead of a puppy-dog.

The Singapore/China system is a potent blend of both. This is my preference. Balance. Interestingly, you can see China in recent times slowly shaking off the heavy reliance on the state by letting their unproductive State-Owned Enterprises fail - something Western investors never thought would happen. This change, however, is going to take generations as China's recent history is way less individualistic than Singapore's ever was.

A huge negative of such a system - and you are right - is that such a system may not allow for a complete opposite political party in the early years. Those who overwhelmingly believe in democracy and complete freedom of speech (Western/Indian politician style) and do not believe in such a system usually leave for the West. Some end up as political exiles or prisoners. This is an unfortunate by-product of the system. During the phase of rapid growth, people are willing to turn a blind eye as long as they see the socio-economic rewards. FYI, this is what I was completely against up till recent years after observing major Western democracies. I still think it's wrong to have political prisoners but neither have I thought of a better solution.

However, do not conflate this with meritocracy and anti-corruption - key variables for this system to flourish. In China and Singapore's meritocracy, anyone has the opportunity to rise up the ranks and have access to all levers of power if they are truly capable. You also have cases where corrupted officials are given hefty jail sentences or sent to be hung. The moment people no longer believe in the system is when it will fall like a house of cards. That's where hopefully healthy democracy has been established as society progresses. Interestingly, the major alternative party in Singapore has explicitly stated that if they were to win in the next election, they would still let the incumbent run the government as they find their feet. This is something that appeals to the silent majority. So this perhaps can be a cue on how China's political landscape will evolve over time, where perhaps the CCP stays but the people get to vote on their leader.

Anyway, it's really hard for me to present what I believe to be balanced views when it comes to China these days especially on Western channels because of the bombardment of anti-China news by America and its allies. I used to believe all of it until I decided to dig deeper quite recently. If I had a dollar for every net negatively-tinted article/video on China, I'd be a millionaire. Yet, despite multiple pronouncements on the fall of China, the US now sees China as a threat on their hegemony. Trump has been an unmitigated disaster for the US as he opened the eyes of many in APAC on "western democracy" and withdrew the US from win-win trade pacts - allowing China to be our main economic partner.

Interestingly, I just had a timely documentary recommended to me on YouTube which probably shows how well-tracked my activities on Google services are. I thought the summary was apt and suited for our discussion:

I also realise I have gone completely off-tangent on the thread topic so apologies on that and I will end here.

Appreciate the detailed post. I will try to respond point by point.

Yes I still believe in free speech and individualism even in my mid 30s.

The CCP has been in power for 70 plus years I believe. If you consider that still too early for an opposition in this really good system then I don't know what to say. People have been jailed and killed for having different political opinions again if you can't think of a better solution I'm shocked. How about not arresting, exiting, killing them but arguing your ideas since they are clearly better.

When you say meritocracy and anti corruption that sounds good. The Thai junta has been selling "those corrupt politicians " for almost 2 decades while being the most corrupt people in the country so I'm going to need some rigorous checks and balances on the people in power. How does a one party system offer me this ? Hanging people for corruption is a barbaric practice and certainly not something I'd be advertising as a positive btw. As an aside don't know if you've followed Indian politics recently but all that freedom stuff is down the drain there as well. Funny how the people in power are looking at China/russia/America and taking lessons on how to stay in power and be corrupt without getting caught.

China is the next great superpower and America's biggest rival. For the improvement in the life and education and projects of their people I congratulate them and am happy for them. But when these things cost the blood of innocents I will not sweep it under the rug of economic betterment no matter how convenient life gets. I agree with you about biases in the press and with China a lot of publications have certain agendas. I will see the Rwanda video later but I saw the hk debate between the two guys you posted and I have to say it didn't really tell me much of anything.

 

[Desert Eagle]

Our society have progressed to the stage where we now have pretty much full political rights. We can openly slam and mock our government's poor handling of issues such as the resurgence of COVID-19 in the country via their own social media pages. However, it is clear at this stage that the general population do not wish to have the kind of toxic nonsense seen in the US, for example, with their identity politics (Fox vs CNN) and constant smearing with outright lies.

There is a difference between political rights and constant political proselytising. Sometimes I think the West focuses too much on the latter when clearly other factors are equally, if not, more important. We just do what we've got to do and as long as we see the results and enjoy the benefits, we move.

You have full political rights as long as you do not touch the levers of power. You speak as a winner of the system since you agree with it and support it. You just admitted to political prisoners yet you say you have full political rights. Those two things do not go together .

 

[Pronewbie]

You have full political rights as long as you do not touch the levers of power. You speak as a winner of the system since you agree with it and support it. You just admitted to political prisoners yet you say you have full political rights. Those two things do not go together .

That was in the past. Now we do. Like I shared, democracy comes organically as society progresses and yes, it evolves over time as with all democracies. We have voted in more opposition candidates over the past few elections and will continue to do so based on merit. We are also able to not just mock, but influence and change policies in a matter of days. That's productive and efficient. In the US, that would probably take years?

Well for the system to work, the vast majority of Singaporeans have to be winners. And if that is no longer the case, then we have our form of democracy to bring us forward. Like I said, that will continuously evolve.

From what I've read on the Chinese system, their people are also able to do the same. I've read a meme on youtube that goes: "In China, you can't change the party but you can change the policies. In the US, you can change the party but not the policies." Based on my experience in my system, I think it has an element of truth to it.