5 ms·

Singapore follows the British Westminister parliamentary system, which places no term limit on the Prime Minister. That is true for most other countries that fo

Singapore follows the British Westminister parliamentary system, which places no term limit on the Prime Minister. That is true for most other countries that follows the same system, like Australia and Canada. None of those countries are run by nepotistic dynasties. I don't think the lack of a term limit necessarily leads to more corruption. My quote was simply to point out the absurdity of getting yourself elected the head of a country - one that prides itself on being free from corruption - just so you can get rich from it. Both Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kwuan Yew are very capable people who no doubt would be far richer had they applied themselves to the private sector rather than public.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
"My quote was simply to point out the absurdity of getting yourself elected the head of a country - one that prides itself on being free from corruption - just so you can get rich from it. Both Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kwuan Yew are very capable people who no doubt would be far richer had they applied themselves to the private sector rather than public." That's not absurd at all. Our politicians in U.S. do it all the time while pretending the campaign contributions are just companies and individuals supporting our political system. Many private sector people have also gone into politics or government positions for the image and power. Running an entire country has historically attracted more tyrants than true, humble servants of their citizens. In this case, it's even more obvious something is up. The country's turn-around started with a revolution of sorts by dissenters who took control of the government. It's turned into an economic powerhouse with the culture put in place but mostly in terms of cheap labor, etc. The problem is that the party cemented this into place by taking control of the media, filling schools with propaganda, blocking rights to dissent, and jailing/torturing dissenters that might cause next revolution (or even evolution). A leader that uses legal and police might to force everything in one permanent direction where the many benefit a rich and powerful few, some local & some foreign, is almost by definition at tyrant. He's highly likely to be on a power trip. Otherwise, he should pass laws protecting speech and press freedom with a strong, independent press allowed. Keep other stuff the same for now but let new ideas percolate into system to improve it. So, Loong and Yew are more likely to be tyrants oppressing a people than innovators continuing to protect them. No term limit is a natural extension of that. :)
- mediumdeviation 10y ago
  This is possibly one of the funniest things I've read on the Internet today. You're absolutely right. By the sound of it they could be tyrants on power trips. On the other hand I think the world would be a much better place if all tyrants on power trips lifted their countries out poverty, creating one of the most educated, cosmopolitan and diverse populations in the world, all within the space of two generations.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    "On the other hand I think the world would be a much better place if all tyrants on power trips lifted their countries out poverty, creating one of the most educated, cosmopolitan and diverse populations in the world, all within the space of two generations." I think more tyrants should do that. Yet again, you people could use qualifiers because the propaganda seeps through. " countries out poverty" Many are still in poverty working long hours making almost nothing with little to show. At least the business owners and foreign investors are making money on their efforts. It's not Africa poverty but in America we still call it poverty. Such people are measured to live shorter, less healthy, and less happy lives. "most educated" How much education do you get in history and critical thinking? Do they teach you to spot logical flaws and propaganda like our colleges often do? Do you apply that to the media and governments claims? Did you learn about places in the world that have good amount of safety and prosperity without draconian restrictions on their people? Did you actively debate among yourselves in government class every hot, political issue and other system of government to determine where you wanted your country to be in 10-20 years? Or did they just teach you language, science, math, tech, some literature, and how to apply those for your government or commercial employers? I'm genuinely curious as oppressive regimes limit education to focus on harmless stuff to limit dissent and I have little information on Singaporean education. "diverse populations " Diverse in terms of beliefs, politics, and economic strategies? Or just ethnically? Our strengths in the U.S. come from the former. The latter is insignificant as it doesn't directly contribute to anything. Our goal there is just reducing discrimination in hiring or justice. Real issues here. "all within the space of two generations." Singaporean's unique focus, work ethic, and belief in their country are things I've always given them credit for. Admirable and a great turn-around. Now, they're potential liabilities that are being used by elites in government and industry to exploit them. Time to learn new character traits and ideas for the nation to see where the great ones will take it next. :)

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"My quote was simply to point out the absurdity of getting yourself elected the head of a country - one that prides itself on being free from corruption - just so you can get rich from it. Both Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kwuan Yew are very capable people who no doubt would be far richer had they applied themselves to the private sector rather than public." That's not absurd at all. Our politicians in U.S. do it all the time while pretending the campaign contributions are just companies and individuals supporting our political system. Many private sector people have also gone into politics or government positions for the image and power. Running an entire country has historically attracted more tyrants than true, humble servants of their citizens. In this case, it's even more obvious something is up. The country's turn-around started with a revolution of sorts by dissenters who took control of the government. It's turned into an economic powerhouse with the culture put in place but mostly in terms of cheap labor, etc. The problem is that the party cemented this into place by taking control of the media, filling schools with propaganda, blocking rights to dissent, and jailing/torturing dissenters that might cause next revolution (or even evolution). A leader that uses legal and police might to force everything in one permanent direction where the many benefit a rich and powerful few, some local & some foreign, is almost by definition at tyrant. He's highly likely to be on a power trip. Otherwise, he should pass laws protecting speech and press freedom with a strong, independent press allowed. Keep other stuff the same for now but let new ideas percolate into system to improve it. So, Loong and Yew are more likely to be tyrants oppressing a people than innovators continuing to protect them. No term limit is a natural extension of that. :)

mediumdeviation 10y ago
This is possibly one of the funniest things I've read on the Internet today. You're absolutely right. By the sound of it they could be tyrants on power trips. On the other hand I think the world would be a much better place if all tyrants on power trips lifted their countries out poverty, creating one of the most educated, cosmopolitan and diverse populations in the world, all within the space of two generations.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "On the other hand I think the world would be a much better place if all tyrants on power trips lifted their countries out poverty, creating one of the most educated, cosmopolitan and diverse populations in the world, all within the space of two generations." I think more tyrants should do that. Yet again, you people could use qualifiers because the propaganda seeps through. " countries out poverty" Many are still in poverty working long hours making almost nothing with little to show. At least the business owners and foreign investors are making money on their efforts. It's not Africa poverty but in America we still call it poverty. Such people are measured to live shorter, less healthy, and less happy lives. "most educated" How much education do you get in history and critical thinking? Do they teach you to spot logical flaws and propaganda like our colleges often do? Do you apply that to the media and governments claims? Did you learn about places in the world that have good amount of safety and prosperity without draconian restrictions on their people? Did you actively debate among yourselves in government class every hot, political issue and other system of government to determine where you wanted your country to be in 10-20 years? Or did they just teach you language, science, math, tech, some literature, and how to apply those for your government or commercial employers? I'm genuinely curious as oppressive regimes limit education to focus on harmless stuff to limit dissent and I have little information on Singaporean education. "diverse populations " Diverse in terms of beliefs, politics, and economic strategies? Or just ethnically? Our strengths in the U.S. come from the former. The latter is insignificant as it doesn't directly contribute to anything. Our goal there is just reducing discrimination in hiring or justice. Real issues here. "all within the space of two generations." Singaporean's unique focus, work ethic, and belief in their country are things I've always given them credit for. Admirable and a great turn-around. Now, they're potential liabilities that are being used by elites in government and industry to exploit them. Time to learn new character traits and ideas for the nation to see where the great ones will take it next. :)