Hacker News Reader

Comment by zibzab | Hacker News Reader

1. Singapore is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship, although a well run one.

2. Did it work? How many died in Singapore compared to your country?

EDIT: sorry all. maybe "authoritarian" is a better word?

According to https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/, Singapore has a total of 31 coronavirus deaths, one of the lowest per capita death rates in the world. So it seems to have worked very well.

That's great, so the most important data point was missing from the article: that it was worth it, as lots of lives were saved. It's just the opposite of the 2nd world war tracking where it caused deaths.

1. Singapore is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship, although a well run one.

I lived in Singapore for a very long time. It’s very strict. But it’s certainly not a dictatorship. If you want to try and understand it, these sorts of comments are not helpful.

> 1. Singapore is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship, although a well run one.

That's a pretty strong claim. The Economist at least classifies it on the lower end of "flawed democracy" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index). It's certainly a significantly more democratic than authoritarian counties.

The ruling party In Singapore has been in power since 1959, making it effectively a one party state. It may not be as authoritarian as some other countries, but the claim that it's a dictatorship is not as outrageous as you make it out to be.

In the United States, the Democratic Party controlled the House of Representatives from 1955 to 1995 (and the Senate for all but 6 of those years), yet it was hardly a one party state.

My mental model for Singapore is that the People's Action Party (ruling party) is kind of like a BigCorp, and the other minor parties are like startups. Whenever one of the minor parties starts to do a little too well, the PAP does an "acquisition" of some of their platform. And thus society progresses without ever changing ruling parties.

A vote for the PAP is a vote to maintain the well-run technocratic status quo, and a vote for a minor party is a vote to tell the PAP about some policies you'd like them to adopt.

There is a legitimate debate to be had about district lines that might influence the fairness of the elections (gerrymandering), but many modern democracies have this issue.

> In the United States, the Democratic Party controlled the House of Representatives from 1955 to 1995 (and the Senate for all but 6 of those years), yet it was hardly a one party state.

Considering that the house of representatives is a fraction of one branch of the us government, your comment falls in the category of "not even wrong."

No, not even wrong would be something like "the Democratic Party controlled the police from 1955 to 1995" (what is that even asserting?); their statement falls in the category of "perfectly true but irrelevant".

While long continuous rule likely indicates being less than fully democratic, it doesn't per se mean it is.

Japan's LDP was in power for 38 years straight and only was kicked out of office by an economic downturn and corruption scandal (which Singapore has tended to avoid better). It then returned to power again for the next 15 years.

That doesn't make Japan a dictatorship.

Yeah, it's clear that Singapore's ruling party has worked hard to ensure that no-one can call them corrupt, or even publicise any information that would give the appearance of corruption.

Plus Singapore is literally a single city. Is it really that unusual for a city to be dominated by a single party, especially when there's no hinterland for competing parties to build up a base in?

Is the number of deaths really the best criterion to compare life in different countries last year ? Since when has the world become an utilitarian contest ?

Probably not. If all countries had in the beginning the same amount of travelers coming from the origin point THEN you could directly attribute case/death counts to safety measures. Some countries dodged the wave and take credit for their mandates, others didnt lock down and also dodged the wave(thus erroneously giving people confidence that doing nothing works). Even within large countries there are regional differences. For example the earlier cases of covid were appearing on the west coast, but New York got hit the hardest before either side took any particular action. Could it be because it was a busier travel nexus?

We shouldn't berate ourselves for not performing the same way island nations in the southern pacific ocean did.

Singapore is also small. Countries that small can much more easily coordinate pretty much everything. Every aspect of governance is simpler and there is significantly less controversy around things.

The USA is enormous and has many distinct cultures with very different ideas and interests.

Flawed democracy is a more apt description. It's not a dictatorship.

The PAP could technically be unseated but it's unlikely due to gerrymandering and their use of the courts to silence the opposition.

Caesar could technically be unseated, but it's unlikely due to his use of the pretorians and dagger-proof cloak? Stalin could technically be unseated, but it's unlikely due to his use of the KGB and gulags?

A dictatorship exists even if technically it could be unseated, just with no practical means available.

You're right that it's not a dictatorship but it's also not democratic. Not only in its government institutions but simply there is no civil society at all. From my personal experience there I've never been in a country that is so utterly devoid of politics as such. Life there feels like living in an over-sized company town, not a nation.

> Life there feels like living in an over-sized company town, not a nation.

How so?

Everything seemed very 'on rails' to me. Get your grades, get your HDB flat, get a corporate job, spend your free time at the mall or movies, there's very little in terms of politics or even culture or art or sports to be honest. When I'm in a foreign country I usually like to ask people where I can experience some local art or maybe read a local novelist, and Singapore was the country where by far even most locals did not know a single recommendation. The nation is small and that's one reason, but go to say, any Scandinavian country and the difference in terms of cultural activity is astonishing.

Also what surprised me was how little of a distinct Singaporean identity there is. The legal system is very British, culturally there's a huge Chinese influence obviously, but I couldn't really figure out if there's something that's really distinctly Singaporean (except for Singlish).

Are you confusing a dictatorship with a strong government?

A government having the power to decide and enforce public policy doesn't make it a dictatorship, it makes it powerful.

I think you can go to jail for jaywalking and flogged for speeding.

How's that for "strong government "?

It’s funny how corporate America brought in a crime of walking on public highways.

Is that supposed to make it less unreasonable to jail people for it?

All your comments in this thread state absurd falsehoods. You are not “flogged for speeding.” My guess is your experience in Singapore is whatever other hysteric comments you’ve read in other threads.

According to a lawyer I found online minor traffic violations only result in fines, so I take it back.

But, when you enter the country they specifically tell you that you can be jailed and/or beaten for some offences, including overstaying your visa.

I'd say that's quite strong.

If that policy were delivered and administered by a democratic government, it'd also not be an example of 'dictatorship'.

The US has a democracy and executes people for murder. The government can kill you? What a dictatorship.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com