| ▲ | ggm 8 hours ago |
| Weaponised the court system to repress union backed opposition, despite having been engaged with the union movement in his early years (as I understand it) It is a kind of workers paradise. If you're well behaved and don't shout you get a good education, health system and housing. 95% owner occupied is pretty damn good. Huge dependence on south Malaysia migrant workers shuttling over the bridge every day, so it's "homes for us but not for thee" however he did cry when the greater Malaysian dream fell apart. The arguments over his house and garden post death sum up the legacy well: he did not seek ulogising or mythologised shrine status, the apparatchiks can't resist the temptation. I see parallels to Britain's Enoch Powell. Super smart, highly educated, disinterested in what others think, Not afraid to be contrarian and not particularly interested in performative democracy but also a bit one eyed on his hobby horse. If Powell hadn't been a racist shit, he could have been as effective as Lee Kwan Yew was. Trivialising Singapore-for-foreigners as "no long hair, gays, gum or spitting" misses the point. Singapore welcomes all kinds of people if they have money, contribute to society and are useful or rich. Modern Singapore has gays and lesbians and tattoos and long hair a-plenty. They're just in a "don't ask don't tell" demi-monde netherworld. Many people would feel safer in Lee Kwan Yew's Singapore than in the USA. Better housing and health policy, less graffiti and street violence. |
|
| ▲ | jabedude 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > If Powell hadn't been a racist shit, he could have been as effective as Lee Kwan Yew was How do you compare Powell's "racism" and LKY's views on race and intelligence? By nearly all definitions of racism, Yew was a racist as well |
| |
| ▲ | rayiner 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | By what definition was LKY “racist?” He presided over growing prosperity for a multi-ethnic country of Chinese, Malays, and Indians. I’d submit that, if LKY fits within your “definitions of racism,” that’s not a useful definition. | |
| ▲ | ggm 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Interesting. I assumed he wasn't. Bad assumption. I don't think he gave a "rivers of blood" speech but that doesn't let him off the hook. Maybe the difference was LKY got to be in control and Powell just got to watch from the sideline. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | vablings 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think the last part really is why LKYs legacy is eulogized so heavily especially with more left leaning counterparts. In the USA there is no legacy matter for politicians, and they often scupper with one foot in the door and the other halfway out. None of the things that LKY did that made Singapore great are unique to a dictatorship but him being the spiritual head and huge focus on education is critical. Interesting the USA has a good appetite for spending lots of money on students, but the education outcomes are really bad compared to places with half the spending |
|
| ▲ | mc32 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Singapore, like other ex-Colonies in SEAsia prove that having been a colony is not an excuse for not doing well. HK, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea were heavily colonized yet after emerging as independent states were able to overcome difficulties, educate their people, take what they learned from their colonizers and have become leading economies of the world. Governance is more important than one’s history when it come to success of a country. |
| |
| ▲ | boelboel 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Most these countries had decent literacy and industry/proto-industrial base before WW2 or before becoming independent states. Singapore itself was richer than Spain in 1960 and one of the richest cities in its region despite the slums. This is why it makes no sense for example to compare China or India, they were just in a fundamentally different spot. Regardless many of the strategies these countries used are increasingly difficult for low income countries to do as these countries (China is the biggest example) themselves are protective of these industries, there's no push for globalizing and as factories got increasingly automated. That's not to say that I believe governance isn't important but the one's history is important for governance itself. | |
| ▲ | ggm 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Absolutely agree. There's a lot of "yes, but.." in this for me, but the simple economics are pretty clear: post colonial asian states like this do fantastically well. Cost of housing in HK is going to be an embuggerance if they don't fix that, it may bifurcate into a more strong over/underclass imbalance. Taiwan is amazing but has thinner underpinnings now the US has demanded chip manufacturing moves to continental USA and the water supply issue is huge. But your central point I agree with strongly: fix education, health, housing and provide at least some representation and you can do so much better than being a colonial outpost of somewhere else sucking value out. | | |
| ▲ | itsthecourier 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | ggm 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think this is a bitter pill to swallow for many because a more liberal sense of multiculturalism in AU and UK allowed enclaves to emerge which have now become intensely divisive where a less open "multiculturalism but conform to our norms" might have avoided. | | |
| ▲ | mytailorisrich 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Singapore is an enclave that emerged because of multiculturalism in Malaya caused by mass immigration from China, actually. | | |
| ▲ | mc32 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | In the 60s the Chinese diaspora in SEAsia experienced violence by locals who didn’t like the success of the Chinese. This happened mostly in Indonesia Burma and Malaysia and not so much in the Philippine islands. Malaysia in particular instituted pretty harsh laws to make Chinese suppress their Chinese identity and also curtailed their economic potential by implementing in practice expropriation and barring the Chinese from certain sectors of the economy. So it emerged not because of multiculturalism but because they were being virtually locked out of the Malaysian economy. | | |
| ▲ | quickthrowman 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > In the 60s the Chinese diaspora in SEAsia experienced violence by locals who didn’t like the success of the Chinese. I’m not super familiar with Chinese history, but this jumped out at me. How were other countries jealous of Chinese people during the decade of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution? Famine, death, destruction, etc. Am I misunderstanding something? | | |
| ▲ | mc32 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I was referring to the Chinese diaspora who had left China over decades and even centuries -they had become successful in SEAsia and were often responsible for commercial progress in those places. The sixties were times of conflict all over the world and in SEAsia the Chinese diaspora in those countries found themselves the targets of the frustration of “natives”. I say natives though the Chinese diaspora was born and raised in those countries but were easily identified as being “foreign” in those places. | |
| ▲ | mytailorisrich 25 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | It means success of ethnic Chinese in South East Asia. In Malaysia, Thailand, etc or even Indonesia, ethnic Chinese tend to be more successful in business circles compared to 'locals'. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mytailorisrich 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The issue has never been previous status as colony but society and culture (East Asian countries and Sinpgapore are all part of the sinosphere culturally). | | |
| ▲ | ggm 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think that's entirely true. Britain forced colonies to export only when beneficial to the domestic British market and forced them to import to benefit the domestic British market: India may have produced cotton, but under colonialism it had to import cotton goods from the UK. Japan did not view Korea as a place to enrich for anyone's benefit but Japan. The same with their occupation of Taiwan. |
| |
| ▲ | forthworld 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | JadeNB 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Many people would feel safer in Lee Kwan Yew's Singapore than in the USA. Better housing and health policy, less graffiti and street violence. Of all the things wrong with the USA, when picking just two, it seems strange for one of them to be graffiti. I have lived in the USA all my life, in some more and some less urban areas, and even from the people most afraid of cities I have never heard graffiti mentioned as a serious worry or complaint. |
| |
| ▲ | ggm 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Eh, you're right. It's just a bugbear for me, tagging and social cohesion decline feels like a parallel, but it may be my projection. I'm in Crete right now and it's decaying beauty, no money for streetscape fixes, bad pavements and unending dissatisfaction written all over the marble walls. I may be displaying my age. Feeling safe equates to being on the street, and unafraid. The tagging isn't the problem the social conditions which ignore it, maybe are. | | |
| ▲ | socalgal2 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm with you. Graffiti is property destruction. It shows lack of respect for property rights. Respect for property rights is highly correlated with prosperity and that includes prosperity for those without property. | | |
| ▲ | JadeNB an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Respect for property rights is highly correlated with prosperity and that includes prosperity for those without property. I think that this sounds good and is a sensible hypothesis, but it's far from clear to me that the corollary of prosperity for those without property is true in practice. | | |
| ▲ | socalgal2 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Why? Do the riches cities have the poorest poor or is it generally the richest cities have the both the richest poor and the most support for them. | | |
| ▲ | JadeNB 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Why? Do the riches cities have the poorest poor or is it generally the richest cities have the both the richest poor and the most support for them. I don't know. Do you? If the latter answer is correct and it's backed up by quantitative evidence, then I guess that I have to accept at least some form of the corollary, although there are still games that one can play with measurement (for example, it's possible that being numerically richer in those richer settings can still result in poorer overall quality of life). |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | GenerWork 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Greece has always had a huge problem with graffiti. I did a semester abroad in Athens, new graffiti popped up all the time, but I never felt unsafe. | | |
| ▲ | nick__m an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's really an old problem, there were graffiti in Greece in 200AD ! |
| |
| ▲ | watwut 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In some places, graffiti means "gang activity" as local gangs tag their turf. If you are from such place, then it kinda makes sense to be afraid of graffity. But where I am from, there are two kinds of graffity: - Cool elaborate pictures, usually in "legal zones" walls city dedicated to it. They take time to create, hence preference for legal place and are made by artists. - Less cool stuff created by skinny "edgy" teenagers, who are jerks to the owners, but also completely harmless. | | |
| ▲ | ggm 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Completely harmless needs contextualising. In gross sense, no: damage to property is not harmless, it has consequences, costs. In personal safety terms sure tagging isn't mugging. If you're down Proudhon's "all property is theft" then graffiti is a kind of tragedy of the commons. Go ahead. Graffiti the Uffitzi, Nelson's column, the Plaka. Stick it to the man! | | |
| ▲ | watwut 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | My point was that there is nothing to fear of. And yes, I said there that they are jerks to owner. Which they are. But, it is not putting anyone in any kind of danger and there is no reason to be scared. > If you're down Proudhon's "all property is theft" then graffiti is a kind of tragedy of the commons. Go ahead. Graffiti the Uffitzi, Nelson's column, the Plaka. Stick it to the man! I honestly don't get what are you on about here. I never seen anyone interpret graffiti as some kind of political statement, unless it is swastika or some such. I genuinely doubt any teenager doing graffiti has any kind of idea about any of those names. | | |
| ▲ | ggm 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | An immense amount of graffiti in Europe is overtly political. And in south America. I know from personal experience. Crete is a hotbed of radicalism and has a massive amount of antizionist graffiti. South America has anti junta statements and support for shining path. |
|
| |
| ▲ | keiferski 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don’t understand why people just tolerate graffiti. It’s ugly and makes buildings look worse. Aesthetics matter. Nothing more irritating that having your apartment building get a fresh coat of paint, look great, and then someone writing scribble tags all over it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | linksnapzz 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Did you know anyone who owned a building that had been tagged? | | | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | watwut 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You was never attacked by a wild graffiti jumping out of the wall to beat you up? weird /s |
|