Listening to political speeches from Singapore are so refreshing compared to the juvenile garbage that we have to endure in the US from US politicians.
One party has been ruling continuously since its formation and you can't go against its ideas.
There is no real competition for ideas like we have in the US.
So, yeah, the "discussion/debates" will be high quality when it is one sided. Just like North Korea is free from low quality debates, Singapore too is free from that.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/sou...
> In June, university students and alumni delivered letters opposing a new racial harmony bill to the Ministry of Home Affairs, arguing that it provided the government with further powers to clampdown on dissent. The authors were later investigated by the police. In the same month, police charged three activists – Annamalai Kokila Parvathi, Siti Amirah Mohamed Asrori and Mossammad Sobikun Nahar – with organizing a procession in a prohibited area under the Public Order Act. These charges came after they led a march to the Presidential Palace to deliver a letter of concern about the Gaza conflict. If found guilty, they could be fined up to SDG 10,000 (USD 7,360) or face six months’ imprisonment.
https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/202...
So is the facade of democracy much different from a dictatorship?
I'm not here saying that Singapore is doing everything right. I'm just noting that public political presentations from Singapore seem vastly better than watching Trump, Leavitt, Noem, Bondi, Patel, or virtually any other "leaders" speak. The quality of communication - message aside - is utter garbage. It's a very sad state of affairs. What we see here is dumbed down language that caters to the least educated, most easily misled masses. And this illustrates where democracy fails: democracy assumes a reasonable level of education and comprehension. We don't have there here, especially when psyops tactics have been employed by some news networks for two decades now.
Tell me what you would consider dissent that's been incorrectly labeled as terrorism?
There is ample... overwhelming numbers of on the ground video of non-violent protestors being assaulted by armed, masked men who are jacked up on false authority. They harm people, they even shoot people, and they lie about it.
The upper administration responds to these events within minutes, naming the harmed citizens as "domestic terrorists". Later, when bodycam and bystander videos are released, this is disproven. Time and time again.
To be very, very clear: anyone not physically attacking an authority figure but who may be protesting, making videos, or yelling, is not a terrorist. That is an observer or a protester.
They can do all the labeling they want, but their actions are limited.
Are you in the US? Have you not seen the amount of protests? Something of that scale is not possible in Singapore.
Can you protest for undocumented immigrants like that in Singapore or in, say, Norway?
The comparison of today vs then is frankly shocking.
I think the "nerd" stereotypes that HN is full of could learn from him in that respect.
What are we to learn from this? That his mental state has deteriorated? That much is obvious. Even ignoring all other evidence, it is utterly clear that he is a fraction of the communicator that he once was.
Obama seems like this great orator because he was just… okay. Like he could speak and sound like a coherent adult. That should be the bar.
What are we doing?