Based, but not edgy. Pragmatic, but not compromised. Hard, but not cruel

Well multiculturalism is actually Singapore's greatest strength you disgusting bigot

When did I say it was a weakness? Lee Kuan Yew gave a good explanation as to how the early morning calls to prayer of mosques was causing discontent among the city's majority of non-Muslims, and that his government came up with a solution that satisfied everyone in a way that would be more difficult in a more democratic society where people vote on the issue. I have a feeling you're just shitposting.

Apologies.

>and that his government came up with a solution that satisfied everyone in a way that would be more difficult in a more democratic society where people vote on the issue

What was it?

>According to former PM Goh Chok Tong, Singaporean Muslims adjusted their religious practices according to the unique circumstances in Singapore. For example, "Singapore, being a city state, is one of the world’s most densely populated countries. With people living in high-rise apartments and in close proximity, the call of prayer or azan amplified through loudspeakers at mosques during the early dawn or in the evening had to be modified. If not, it would have been an issue with the majority non-Muslims and would make it difficult for them to accept the building of new mosques in their vicinity. At the same time, the Muslims had to be convinced that any changes to their public call for prayer were not aimed at curbing the practice of their religion. The changes were also made incrementally. First, the loudspeakers were tilted inwards and away from nearby houses, and limits were set on their volume levels. Later, a radio frequency was allocated to allow the call to prayer to be broadcast over the radio. In this way, all Muslims who wished to receive the call to prayer could just tune in to their radio. Over time, the mosques did away with loudspeakers."

This solution wasn't perfect, as it still pissed off hardliners on either side, but it generally shows the pragmatism of Lee Kuan Yew and his successors (who basically reported to him anyways).

My hobbies are skiing, guns, and cars. LKY and Singapore are not for me.

A lot of the stuff he said early was cringe or pretty stupid like his "plans" for the economy that his economists were quick enough to stop.

As the years went by the people who kept him in check shrunk and they es men grew more.

He was an exceptional politician - understanding the importance of keeping the country's growth independent of influence from rival politicians, businesses, or trade unions.

Amos is right, Lee was a cunt who deserved to die

The contrarian in me wonders if Singapore wouldn't have turned out fine without him.

After all, Hong Kong and Macau did fine without strongman dictators, and frankly, they're nicer places to live.

Amos is a raging autist who is likely posting >tfw no gf on r9k right now.

>The contrarian in me wonders if Singapore wouldn't have turned out fine without him.
Being one of the largest trading ports in the world makes it hard to fuck up really bad.

Easy to fuck up the social part

See: USA

the radio is a good idea

Waah, the USA is only the most productive AND the strongest! What a failed nation state am I right?

jews man. and blacks. and feminists. and mooslims. who did I forget? ah, the gays. and lesbians and trannies.

I want to say that Lee Kuan Yew, or maybe some other Singaporean official, actually offered to consult with western European governments on how to accommodate Muslim immigrants, as Singapore had had some successful experience with a rising Muslim population in a country where the majority was not Muslim. I think this consultation was offered in the wake of the Swiss minaret ban.

How did Singapore even happen? Why did so many Chinese people end up in Malaysia?

It was backed up by anglos.

Why do shills try to portray Singapore as a success of multiculturalism?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_race_riots_in_Singapore
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_race_riots_of_Singapore
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Little_India_riot

>Race riots
Literally the equivalent of shitposting IRL.

These aren't Hutu-Tutsi tier violence.

No but they point out that there is resentment among the communities. Even in a prosperous peaceful society multiculturalism creates conflict. Really makes you think...

>hard but not cruel
Just because a political leader doesn' go full genocide does not mean he was cruel.

He has sued critics and opposition politicians to the point of breaking them. Singapore's laws are termed "draconian" and everything is geared towareds GDP growth. And let's not forget the TPP. Also the widespread mistreatment of foreign workers.

While it is an ingenious way to handle prayer calls (Malaysia uses TV for this), there are actually two underlying factors that made the Malays accept this. First of which was the tacit acceptance of Lee's PAP as the bigger strongman that everyone should fear. He's more than willing to imprison malays for being malays and Jehovah's Witnesses for not wanting to join the Singapore Armed Forces. The other is "fucking loudspeakers in the wee fucking hours of the morning" thing. It's not a religious or cultural issue; it's a human decency issue. You really don't want to piss people off for no good reason.

A lot of people don't realize that his economists did a lot of work too. You don't expect a fucking lawyer to know how to run a country economically.

...by making sure no one but his party controlled everything.

As in, if THE JEW David Marshall ran things? A percentage point less of GDP growth, that's for sure.

It's not completely successful. All it did was drive racism underground. A lot of Singapore's online comments are viciously /pol/ tier. And the Little India riots were incited because foreign workers are treated worse than cattle in here.

I'll agree with the posting part, but not with the autist part. He's more likely to go full /pol/ or tumblr because, surprise, surprise, his treatment while being incarcerated for criticizing the PAP was literally warcrimes-tier.

>3 riots
>this somehow means it's a failed multi-ethnic state

>He has sued critics and opposition politicians to the point of breaking them. Singapore's laws are termed "draconian" and everything is geared towareds GDP growth. And let's not forget the TPP. Also the widespread mistreatment of foreign workers.
This isn't a valid counterpoint. In a poverty stricken country workers rights should be subsidiary to growth.
>It's not completely successful. All it did was drive racism underground. A lot of Singapore's online comments are viciously /pol/ tier. And the Little India riots were incited because foreign workers are treated worse than cattle in here.
Indian workers are treated like garbage literally everywhere, including India. They go to Singapore because being treated like garbage there is still better than India.

There is resentment and conflict withing culturally homogenous societies too.

You're talking to a guy who has no knowledge of the political climate of Singapore and gets his information about multiculturalism from image collages on /pol/.

Singapore is an economically successful country and the PAP has had to literally tell foreign workers that they have rights. Rights that the PAP regularly choose not to apply when the construction industry ignores wholesale.

And it's not just Indian workers that get shafted. Chinese construction workers too. It's literally a problem that the PAP has tried to ignore or put in a minimal amount of effort to tackle because muh economic progress.

He really proved how it's possible for capitalism to function well in a society that is extremely authoritarian.

Thank you based capitalism

He proved that 'political rights' are not only unnecessary, but even detrimental to a functional and flourishing society. Certainly *not* a marker of progress.

>whiggism
It's 2016 my man, why are you still holding onto this silliness.

I've lived in Singapore for nearly 18 years now. I was born here and though I spent a significant number of years overseas I went through the common primary, secondary and now Polytechnic school system here.

Contemporary Singapore definitely has better multiracial harmony compared to many other countries. While it's true that there were many race riots in the 1950~ eras, they are virtually non-existent now. There is a lot of background into the 2013 Little India riot just as there is to Singapore's history. non-Singaporean citizens have always been a significant part of Singapore's population, the perpetrators of the riot were mostly caused by foreign workers who came from a relatively homogeneous country.

While it's true that Lee Kuan Yew had some traits of a dictator, I feel they were necessary. Many in the West chant of democracy but democracy wasn't going to feed us, clothe us or supply us. At least when Lee Kuan Yew was in charge what we wanted done would have been done, and that was really important to a country with barely any natural resources, land mass and an uneducated population. Taiwan used to be a dictatorship as well, Hong Kong still had an English backer until the Chinese took over. For Singapore, we were all alone and couldn't quite make the same mistakes other countries did. At least now that the population is educated, we can start to talk and embrace this democracy. What would have been the point of democracy if we had all been starving or worse, uneducated?

My grandparents never received an education, my father was the first in our family to receive a university degree and because of that I got to grew up in many places like Germany, New Zealand, Shanghai, etc. Now I'm studying in Polytechnic. I'm just an average Singaporean and I often go back home with my Malay, Indian and Chinese friends. Hell, all my friends in Secondary School were Malays.

Sorry for the long post.

Some of his best friends were dictators. He's a fucking dictator with more brains than we give him for.

He cemented the PAP and personally, I thunk he made it so that Singapore would literally fall apart without the PAP. He's also undermined political progress and freedom of expression.

Yes, you could argue that those aren't necessary for economic progress or for paying the bills. It sure as hell is a mess in the States, which Singapore LOVES to deride. But if that's the case, Singapore might as well be a corporate entity. Fuck, we're already one to begin with.

And we have THE WORLD'S MOST CONVENIENT PORT. We also have A HISTORY OF BEING A TRADE CITY THAT ALSO HAS A CONVENIENT PORT. We were a British CROWN COLONY because of OUR PORT. The Japanese in WW2 captured us because WE HAD A PORT AND THE RELEVANT FACILITIES TO REPAIR SHIPS. (Notice a pattern here? It is literally spelled out for you)

And education means jack shit when it comes to politics. You could have a hundred fucking PhDs or know a fuckton about, I dunno, hedgehog keeping or Balinese woodcarving or something and you'd still vote for the strongman because he said something you agree with. I mean, the fucking Phillipines voted in Duterte because they wanted some economic success, which of course happened under Ramon Magsaysay but no one in the Phillipines cares enough to actually do research on le dutdut.

And of course, you're comparing how the PAP handles multiculturialism as compared to the Eternal Anglo, which is a shitty comparison. The Eternal Anglo never tried that. The PAP only tried integration after literally installing themselves as the strongman.

If anything, Singapore only proves the fucking reactionaries right. It's extremely depressing.

Then the question you are asking is how much freedom is enough? For a Muslim, one can argue that they find their own theocratic governments overbearing while many would wish they were born in Singapore as they consider it religious-freedom comparatively. If freedom of expression is so important in the United States why is there so much social discord there?

"I thunk he made it so that Singapore would literally fall apart without the PAP." Okay. How? What kind of political progress has he been undermining and is freedom of expression more suppressed in Singapore than in Muslim countries? At one point of time I felt extremely repressed about living in Singapore and the government in Secondary School; I sure didn't get arrested for that.

Okay, we're a corporate entity. What would you rather us to be? We don't have land for agriculture and barely enough for manufacturing. Do tell us how better we could use our landmass?

I don't really see the reason why you keep pointing out Singapore's port. Without a doubt we have a very important port, but the reason that we were so successful compared to our neighbors is that our services, English as a our main language and productivity was superb compared to our neighbors. You may think that simply because we have a port, we magically generate money but there's a lot of input and expertise required in making it one of the top in the world.

I don't really get your point about politics and education but without a doubt a higher level of education would draw a greater amount of skepticism towards the government (which is good). I'm able to think for myself and I don't always agree with the government for what they do.

I don't know who or what the 'Eternal Anglo' is. "The PAP only tried integration after literally installing themselves as the strongman." Yes, and they succeeded as the strongman and more successful than the US. So what's the problem?