In many ways, I actually respect Singapore’s accomplishments, particularly its rapid economic development. In a relatively short period of time, it has gone from being a mosquito infested third-world country (albeit one with strong British institutions) in 1965 to being Southeast Asia’s air-conditioned “Switzerland” more than four decades later.While I can understand Lee Kuan Yew’s authoritarianism upon independence in 1965–when Singapore was under threat from Communist bandits in Malaysia, from Indonesian President Sukarno’s aggressive “Konfrontasi” foreign policy, and from a number of internal Communist-led racial riots --what about the authoritarianism of later times? Once Suharto saved Indonesia and rightfully decimated the PKI, and things in Malaysia settled down, where was the external threat to Singapore? Once the PAP destroyed the Barisan Socialis as a political party and won the hearts and minds of the populace, where were the internal threats? Instead of loosening his hold on power, Lee became even more stubborn and authoritarian. He still kept the ISA on the books, still promoted eugenics (despite having Albino family members), still appointed torture specialists and spies to media outlets, still mercilessly went after opponents within and outside of the party, and still preached “Asian values” at every opportunity.
I would argue that having these authoritarian controls do not encourage innovation in today’s information age–they hinder it. In fact, I would argue that Singapore today is a lot more of an unequal country than Taiwan is (e.g. it has a much higher Gini coefficient), which is ironic since the PAP once called itself a Socialist party and was a member of Socialist International. Furthermore, while the KMT in Taiwan and the PAP in Singapore were built upon Marxist-Leninist party structures, I would argue that the PAP is much more hierarchical,and its leaders (its MPs) are far removed from grassroots members and their daily struggles and concerns. You would never see top members of the PAP prostrating themselves to kiss the ground during campaigning, visiting night markets regularly, or wearing nutty costumes while electioneering.The PAP elite are as far removed from daily Singaporeans and this came to the forefront last year when a daughter of a PAP MP was criticized for writing on her blog about her distaste for the simple-minded heartlanders and how they don’t deserve the finer things in life.
Furthermore, despite the KMT’s corruption in old times, the Party’s land reform act in the 1950s, the aid assistance and favorable free trade agreements it received from the US, its industrialization policies under CCK, and its democratization policies under CCK and LTH, helped out a majority of Taiwan’s citizens. In Singapore, despite the high GDP per capita figures, Lee’s 100 cadres still control a majority of the island’s wealth and many “heartlanders” still live paycheque to paycheque for “coolie wages.”
Has Temasek holdings, the government’s investment arm, ever had an independent audit? 
Whose law firm benefits from the sale of each HDB flat (where 90 percent of Singaporeans live)? Why is the Internal Security Act still on the books after 40 years? While democracy activists complain about their stints in jail in Taiwan, do any of their sentences match the 32-year sentence of former Barisan Socialis MP Chia Thye Poh in Singapore?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chia_Thye_Poh
The affirmative action programs in Singapore are also a joke. I found a lot of the Malays were quite lazy on the job, and the Chinese were always complaining about this, but unable to do anything about it because of government-mandated quotas. In the whole country, one can only speak their mind at Speaker’s corner and racial topics are still bannned. But make no mistake about it, the Chinese run the show and are as chauvinistic as ever. I remember hearing one executive in Singapore brag that the top party members in the PRC were looking at Singapore as their role model.
Has the ruling party in Taiwan ever arrested and torured its own high-ranking officials as it did to former Singaporean Solictior General Francis Seow en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Seow or been forced-fed drugs and exiled as with former President Devan Nair in the 1980s?
[quote=“wikipedia”]
Macabre political intrigues followed the post-election excitement. Just before the election, he(Seow) was detained without trial under the Internal Security Act for 72 days, accused of having received funds from the United States and advice for the purpose of promoting democracy in Singapore. According to his account, he was subjected to torture, including sleep deprivation and intense air-conditioning. During the elections, he was criticised as being an American stooge. [/quote]
[quote=“wikipedia”]
On March 28, 1985, [President] Nair resigned in unclear circumstances. Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew stated in Parliament that Nair resigned to get treatment for alcoholism, a charge Nair hotly denied. According to Nair’s counterclaim, he resigned under pressure when their political views came into conflict and Lee threatened to seek a motion in parliament to oust him as president. Nair also alleged that he was fed drugs to make him appear disoriented, and rumours were spread about his personal life in an attempt to discredit him. [/quote]
In the 1990s and early 2000s, Singapore still routinely threatened opposition politicians with the strong arm of the law. When I worked there in my early 20s, one of my saddest sights was seeing an 80-year old opposition politician trying to hawk his autobiography at the Cold Storage Store (equivalent of Wellcome in Singapore) on Orchard Road in order to pay off his fines. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.B._Jeyaretnam
In Taiwan, I would argue that things improved quite a bit between the CKS to CCK periods. In fact, Taiwanese in a recent survery overwhelmingly chose CCK as their favorite President (Lee Teng Hui was a far second, but way ahead of CKS and CSB). Furthermore, Lee Teng Hui was able to defeat nepotism and wrestle power away from the hardliners and from Madame Chiang’s meddling after CCK’s death. Contrast this to present day Singapore. I would argue that MM Lee is well respected (albeit is feared and considered abrasive on a personal level) by a majority of Singaporeans. Is his son, the current PM, respected in the same manner? Did he really deserve to be promoted to the PM office? I would argue not at all (in one famous incident he slapped a PAP colleague who disagreed with him). Of course, if Western magazines bring up the nepotism issue, they are also threatened. Also, didn’t the present PM’s wife die in mysterious circumstances in the 1980s?
[quote=“Singaporegovt blogspot”]
First turning point was the death of his first wife, Malaysian-born medical doctor Dr Wong Ming Yang, in 1982. According to public media, she died of a heart attack shortly after giving birth to their second child. Others claim that she committed suicide by pressures from her in-laws[/quote]
singaporegovt.blogspot.com/2005_ … chive.html
On a personal level, living in Singapore was in many ways more enjoyable than living in Taiwan. It is cleaner, wages are higher for foreigners, everyone speaks English, mid-level officials help foreigners rather than make life a nuisance for them, and infrastructure is top notch if you are well educated and make good coin. For a single man in his early 20s, Orchard Road, Geylang, Batam in Indonesia, and the clubs on Mohammed Sultan Road provide perfect venues for meeting interesting people.
That being said, average Taiwanese are inherently more “friendlier” than your average Singaporean, and politics here (despite the imperfections) have progressed somewhat over the past few decades. I really couldn’t say the same thing about Singapore.
