Nowhere in the article does the author blame this for the perceived issues he mentions. In fact from his tone, this seems to be a positive in the way Singapore has improved in modern terms.

that's my point. he doesn't acknowledge the most important factor, although it actually underlies many of his issues.

"improved in modern terms" is very twisted language - perhaps you'd care to explain what you mean by this specifically

I meant the attributes that we measure progress by. Quoted straight from the article - "It leads the world in education, banking, shipping and has created a everyday existence of unrivaled cleanliness, safety and stability"

education, banking and shipping are of course all much easier in a city state which is advantageously located and was, prior to decolonialistion, full of the best facilities for all of these in the region by far..

safety, cleanliness and stability are all pretty straightforward attributes of authoriarianism . Unless we want to reconsider our concpetion of 20th century governments usually deemed 'backward' which also achieved this, I'm not sure we should call this 'progress'

but whats that progress for? median income that hasnt changed perceptibly for a decade? a gini like the usa?

As in Plato's five regimes, democracy is only very slightly better than tyranny/anarchy. Authoritarian single party state can also be rephrased into functioning semi-aristocracy. All governments have advantages and flaws, it's better to compare them not on a theoretical demonized basis but on the output and tangible effects. For example, economically Singapore succeeds fantastically, but culturally it's missing something.