[mseebach]

It's generally well known that Singapore has no political freedom and only limited freedom of speech. However, financial freedom is in short supply in the world, and Singapore is one of the nicer places that have it.

To call Singapore a "fascist dictatorship" is only true in the most literal senses of the words. It's by no means perfect, but Singapore has a much better record on human rights than anyone generally considered "fascist dictatorships". I'm not suggesting they should get a free pass, but it's not exactly Belarus there.

[rayiner]

> To call Singapore a "fascist dictatorship" is only true in the most literal senses of the words.

Not only the literal sense, but also in any dictionary sense of the words. What you perhaps meant to say is that it doesn't have some of the secondary characteristics (e.g. starving peasants) that are usually connoted when the phrase "fascist dictatorships" is used.

[mseebach]

noun [mass noun] an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fascism

Singapore is "partly free" (Freedom in the World) and has a "hybrid government" (meaning that it contains authoritarian and democratic elements, Democracy Index), so not flat-out authoritarian, and certainly not authoritarian in "social organisation". It is generally not considered "extreme right wing", and save for drugs and criticism of the government, isn't particularly intolerant - indeed, it goes to lengths to protect a multiracial, multi-religious society. Not a quality typically associated with dictionary-fascists. Caning is a cruel practise than can be said to be "intolerant", but it's a bit of a stretch.

noun [mass noun] government by a dictator: the effects of forty years of dictatorship [count noun] a country governed by a dictator. absolute authority in any sphere.

https://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dictatorsh...

Absolute mean unhindered by constitution and the law. Both exists (as it does in most dictatorships) but Singapore generally enjoys the rule of law. So not, actually not a dictionary-dictatorship.

[PeterisP]

If a place "has no political freedom and only limited freedom of speech", as you say, then how it is better than Belarus?

[potatolicious]

This is a salient question. I'm not familiar with human rights abuses in Belarus, but some cursory research indicates that there's a high degree of intersection between their abuses and Singapore's abuses.

For one, they both take political prisoners. They both abuse the judiciary as a means of silencing opposition. Show trials and trumped up charges against political opponents? Yep, and yep.

Saliently, from the Wikipedia article on this subject[0]:

> "International documents reflect that the Belarusian courts that are subject to an authoritarian executive apparatus, routinely disregard the rule of law and exist to rubber-stamp decisions made outside the courtroom; this is tantamount to the de facto non-existence of courts as impartial judicial forums."

This is pretty similar to the claims that have been leveled at Singapore in the past. The use of trumped-up criminal charges to silence and even imprison political dissidents.

They're even similar in the Press Freedom rankings (147th vs. 151st).

The only major difference is that Belarus has been frequently accused to racist oppression of their ethnic minorities, whereas Singapore's abuses do not seem to be race-based.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Belarus

[mseebach]

The oppression is much broader, more random and much more heavy handed in Belarus. There are political prisoners as of right now in Belarus, if there are any in Singapore, they are not known to the public (Yes, I know they have a history, but we're talking about the present). Since everything is state controlled in Belarus, if you fall out of favour with the government, you place the careers of yourself and your family in jeopardy, and university admission and apartment waiting lists etc get a lot more complicated - again, subject to total randomness.

This would be summarily impossible in Belarus: http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013/05/mayday-protest-at-ho...

[Symmetry]

Fascist? Really? As far as I can tell Singapore isn't nationalist at all or totalitarian. I'm not sure you could even call them outright authoritarian, fines for large organizations criticizing the government is bad but it's not nearly as bad as arresting individuals for the same.

They're not a dictatorship either. Their political structure does have a working set of checks and balances that does seem to prevent an individual at the top from doing whatever they want. Call them a "paternalistic oligarchy" if you want, but "fascist dictatorship" is way out of line.

[ValentineC]

Singapore has, at various times, used the pretext of police investigation to detain individuals who have openly criticised public policy in the mass media. [1] and [2] are recent examples.

What it comes down to is rule by fear — Singaporeans, having read about said people being detained in the news, become conditioned into being scared of getting into trouble and breaking the law.

[1] http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2013/04/25/singapore-probes...

[2] http://www.lianainfilms.com/2013/02/in-which-lim-makes-me-ko...