Posted on 06/03/2005 9:31:36 AM PDT by XR7
http://www.issues2000.org/spectrum/bubble.htm Read it. Not the best but infinintly better than China.
The majority party in Singapore is the Peoples Action Party which holds a 81 seat majority in the 84 seat Parliament. 47 MP ran unopposed. There are many opposition parties, but none get any traction with the population. The major opposition parties are the Workers Party, the Singapore Democratic Party, and the National Solidarity Party and the Singapore Peoples Party.
Isn't participating in an opposition party a capital offense in China?
Who's changing the subject?
I said in my post that Rumsfeld should not be in Singapore and lecture countries about democracy when Singapore itself is not democratic.
Then, you write back saying I was a baffoon because Singapore is democratic -- and i just proved to you that it is not and you have ATE UP ON THE PROPAGANDA by the Singapore government :) In other words, your posts proved that you are a bunch of baffoons.
Dont' change the subject yourself. You have just lost the argument. I have shown to you at least one example of a country without democracy which still thrives economically.
If Rumsfeld would have said that corruptions would slow down the economic growth, i'd agree with him. But he's not saying that. He's pointing out China's lack of democracy while ignoring others lack of democracy but successful economically. Singapore is successful economically because corruption is minimal (and they did this by paying their official high wages so that they would be less inclined to accept bribes) and they have strong rule of law.
There is only one party in Singapore which is in control. There are opposition parties, but they're window dressing to confused the West as far as it is concerned.
Two Zots says he did not even read the article I posted LOL. Like I said, singapore is not the best but its better than China.
"Is Singapore a democracy? Sort of. They're certainly capitalist, that is, economically free. We equate "democracy" with political freedom, but in that realm, Singapore is much closer to the authoritarian regimes that we associate with former Communist countries. We associate democracy and capitalism, political freedom and economic freedom, because they go together in America and Europe. "
That was the source you posted?? :) much closer to authoritarian regimes such as Communist countries. Enough said.
Singapore is better than China in terms of corruption adn rule of law. I'd agree with you there, but as far as the political system, it is authoritarian. One party system. It fools the world by maknig everyone thing it has multi-parties, when in fact, participation in other party is shunned upon.
In this article: http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-5-3/28402.html only 2 congressmen out of 94 is from opposition parties. It's like the Chinese parliment voting on issues by the Politburo -- once in a while, 2 guys would not vote yes on it out of 2000. The author also points out that people aren't exactly allowed to particpate in the other parties.
I am quoting this from an anti-China site as well, they're definitely biased toward the CCP.
Oops, i meant to say, they're definitely NOT biased toward the CCP (read the rest of the articles on the site, very anti-China in general).
Rumsfeld was talking about REFORMS! The chicoms aren't making any worthy of note! Look at the economic freedom index.
Anti-chicom, maybe. But, then, who isn't? Oops! You aren't.
Yeah as Monkeywrech says, you should try reading the article :)
The article was written in 1993 where the author predicts the fall of Singapore government under one party system. It is now 2005 and it is still authoritarian. China is also quite different today than it was in 1993, so the article is basically worthless at this point.
As far as the economic freedom index, it basicallygrouoped China into the same group with India, so again, the point is moot whether India will suceed over China or not. Both are bureaucratic, but more so on the Indians as they have not allowed foreign direct investments. It would take a firm 40 days or so to open a company in China, it would take 90 days in India.
Again, the point is, democracy isn't the driving force for economic freedom in Singapore -- it's rule of law (number one priority) and corruption. It isn't on US hitlist of non-democratic/representative governments because it is pro-US. In other words, it's hypocritical for Rumsfeld to lecture any country in Singapore about democracy when the place that hosts the visit isn't a democracy either.
India has made reforms, the corrupt chicoms have gotten worse, and you know it! Rumsfeld isn't being a hypocrite. He's calling them out. (It's almost high noon.)He's telling the chicoms it's the last call to their act together. They aren't even trying. Just one stall after another. Congressional sanctions/tarifs are heading their way like a freight train.
Touche'.
LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.