> The problem with Singapore is that PAP is actually competent and far from Orban/Putin level.
The underlying problem is that with an authoritarian government you have no recourse if it changes its attitude. Prussia was run competently, too, until Wilhelm II inherited the throne. Authoritarian rule is always a gamble.
There's a reason why Popper argued that "who should rule" is the wrong question [1]:
> Karl Popper identified this attitude as the "Who should rule?"
> approach to politics. He pointed out that it is a bad question
> which seeks an authoritarian answer. Actually, rulers are only
> a means to an end. What we need are good policies, whether
> that comes from one ruler, or many rulers in succession, or no
> rulers.
> What we should focus on instead of who gets to rule is
> creating a system in which errors are corrected. That means
> that bad policies can be changed and bad rulers removed from
> power. And both of those should be possible without violence.
> All people can do is say they have low press freedom index but what can you do?
I think you're misunderstanding. Freedom of the press is just one example. Civil liberties in Singapore are seriously curtailed, and it's not just freedom of speech. Ask HRW and Amnesty what they think of Singapore; ask LGBT people in Singapore in particular what they think about the "competent" PAP's attitude towards them. Well, except that you can't really, because they may get punished for speaking their minds.
> Gays do not eat feces and do not drink piss and anal blood but Church handed out leaflets with 'research' that says they do (and that's why being gay will make you sick) to young children and there were no consequences.
And yet, being gay in Poland is legal, while in Singapore same-sex activity can be a criminal offense.
> Calls online and otherwise for killing Donald Tusk for being a traitor, congratulating ISIS for killing gays on facebook (that's illegal in Poland already and people were doing it under their own real names), saying elections were rigged if you lost and providing no proof, claiming there are huge conspiracies financed by the JEW Soros, etc. Why exactly is this allowed? What value does that 'speech' bring? Why is the Polish law not enforced?
Because the party in power doesn't care. It may surprise you, but there's no First Amendment in Poland. There are significantly more restrictions on freedom of speech than you think, but, oddly, they do not have the effect you wish for.
