The Economist: No progress in democracy in Singapore
December 21st, 2010 | 
Author: There is little progress in democracy in Singapore for the last two years, according to the 2010 Democracy Index released by the Economist’s Economist Intelligence Unit. (read more here)
Singapore is ranked a pathetic 82th in the world, the same rank it attained two years ago and remains classified as a ‘hybrid regime’ among the likes of Russia, Pakistan and Cambodia.
In contrast, all the developed countries are either ‘full democracies’ or ‘flawed democracies’. The most democratic nation in the world is Norway, followed by Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand and Australia.
According to EIU’s definition, a ‘hybrid regime’ is one which:
“Elections have substantial irregularities that often prevent them from being both free and fair. Government pressure on opposition parties and candidates may be common. Serious weaknesses are more prevalent than in flawed democracies–in political culture,functioning of government and political participation. Corruption tends to be widespread and the rule of law is weak. Civil society is weak. Typically there is harassment of and pressure on journalists, and the judiciary is not independent.”
EIU is wrong. Singapore’s political system needs a re-classification. There is no independent media in Singapore – journalists need not be harassed as they are the unofficial spin doctors of the ruling party. Civil society is non-existent as all NGOs and grassroots organizations are controlled by the government in one way or another. Political apathy pervades the entire citizenry with little or no participation from the people in the political scene which is completely controlled by the ruling elite.
It will be more apt to describe Singapore as an ‘authoritarian state’:
“In these states political pluralism is absent or heavily circumscribed. Many countries in this category are outright dictatorships. Some formal institutions of democracy may exist, but these have little substance. Elections, if they do occur, are not free and fair. There is disregard for abuses and infringements of civil liberties. Media are typically state-owned or controlled by groups connected to the ruling regime. There is repression of criticism of then government and pervasive censorship. There is no independent judiciary.”
Like Russia, Belarus and Moldova, Singapore’s ‘democracy’ is a farce – its rubber-stamp parliament is dominated by a dominant single party with an ‘approved’ opposition party to give it some resemblance of decency.
.
Jay
Join our Facebook discussion here.
Posted in Editorial
The Democracy Index is an index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit examining the state of democracy in 167 countries, attempting to quantify this with an Economist Intelligence Unit Index of Democracy which focused on five general categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture.
The countries are categorized into “Full Democracies”, “Flawed Democracies”, “Hybrid Regimes” (all considered democracies), and “Authoritarian Regimes” (considered dictatorial).
The Democracy Index 2010
1 Norway 9.8 Full democracy
2 Iceland 9.65 Full democracy
3 Denmark 9.52 Full democracy
4 Sweden 9.5 Full democracy
5 New Zealand 9.26 Full democracy
6 Australia 9.22 Full democracy
7 Finland 9.19 Full democracy
8 Switzerland 9.09 Full democracy
9 Canada 9.08 Full democracy
10 Netherlands 8.99 Full democracy
11 Luxembourg 8.88 Full democracy
12 Ireland 8.79 Full democracy
13 Austria 8.49 Full democracy
14 Germany 8.38 Full democracy
15 Malta 8.28 Full democracy
16 Czech Republic 8.19 Full democracy
17 United States 8.18 Full democracy
18 Spain 8.16 Full democracy
19 United Kingdom 8.16 Full democracy
20 South Korea 8.11 Full democracy
21 Uruguay 8.1 Full democracy
22 Japan 8.08 Full democracy
23 Belgium 8.05 Full democracy
24 Mauritius 8.04 Full democracy
24 Costa Rica 8.04 Full democracy
26 Portugal 8.02 Full democracy
27 Cape Verde 7.94 Flawed democracy
28 Greece 7.92 Flawed democracy
29 Italy 7.83 Flawed democracy
30 South Africa 7.79 Flawed democracy
31 France 7.77 Flawed democracy
32 Slovenia 7.69 Flawed democracy
33 Estonia 7.68 Flawed democracy
34 Chile 7.67 Flawed democracy
35 Botswana 7.63 Flawed democracy
36 Republic of China (Taiwan) 7.52 Flawed democracy
37 Israel 7.48 Flawed democracy
38 Slovakia 7.35 Flawed democracy
39 Cyprus 7.29 Flawed democracy
40 India 7.28 Flawed democracy
41 Lithuania 7.24 Flawed democracy
42 Timor-Leste 7.22 Flawed democracy
43 Hungary 7.21 Flawed democracy
43 Jamaica 7.21 Flawed democracy
45 Trinidad and Tobago 7.16 Flawed democracy
46 Panama 7.15 Flawed democracy
47 Brazil 7.12 Flawed democracy
48 Poland 7.05 Flawed democracy
48 Latvia 7.05 Flawed democracy
50 Mexico 6.93 Flawed democracy
51 Argentina 6.84 Flawed democracy
51 Bulgaria 6.84 Flawed democracy
53 Croatia 6.81 Flawed democracy
54 Suriname 6.65 Flawed democracy
55 Sri Lanka 6.64 Flawed democracy
56 Romania 6.6 Flawed democracy
57 Colombia 6.55 Flawed democracy
57 Thailand 6.55 Flawed democracy
59 Papua New Guinea 6.54 Flawed democracy
60 Indonesia 6.53 Flawed democracy
61 El Salvador 6.47 Flawed democracy
62 Paraguay 6.4 Flawed democracy
62 Peru 6.4 Flawed democracy
64 Mongolia 6.36 Flawed democracy
65 Serbia 6.33 Flawed democracy
65 Moldova 6.33 Flawed democracy
67 Ukraine 6.3 Flawed democracy
68 Montenegro 6.27 Flawed democracy
69 Namibia 6.23 Flawed democracy
70 Dominican Republic 6.2 Flawed democracy
71 Malaysia 6.19 Flawed democracy
72 Benin 6.17 Flawed democracy
73 Macedonia 6.16 Flawed democracy
74 Philippines 6.12 Flawed democracy
75 Guyana 6.05 Flawed democracy
75 Guatemala 6.05 Flawed democracy
77 Lesotho 6.02 Flawed democracy
77 Ghana 6.02 Flawed democracy
79 Mali 6.01 Flawed democracy
80 Hong Kong 5.92 Hybrid regime
80 Bolivia 5.92 Hybrid regime
82 Singapore 5.89 Hybrid regime
83 Bangladesh 5.87 Hybrid regime
84 Albania 5.86 Hybrid regime
85 Malawi 5.84 Hybrid regime
86 Lebanon 5.82 Hybrid regime
87 Ecuador 5.77 Hybrid regime
88 Honduras 5.76 Hybrid regime
89 Turkey 5.73 Hybrid regime
89 Nicaragua 5.73 Hybrid regime
91 Zambia 5.68 Hybrid regime
92 Tanzania 5.64 Hybrid regime
93 Palestine 5.44 Hybrid regime
94 Bosnia and Herzegovina 5.32 Hybrid regime
95 Senegal 5.27 Hybrid regime
96 Venezuela 5.18 Hybrid regime
97 Liberia 5.07 Hybrid regime
98 Uganda 5.05 Hybrid regime
99 Mozambique 4.9 Hybrid regime
100 Cambodia 4.87 Hybrid regime
101 Kenya 4.71 Hybrid regime
102 Bhutan 4.68 Hybrid regime
103 Georgia 4.59 Hybrid regime
104 Pakistan 4.55 Hybrid regime
105 Sierra Leone 4.51 Hybrid regime
106 Kyrgyzstan 4.31 Hybrid regime
107 Russia 4.26 Hybrid regime
108 Nepal 4.24 Hybrid regime
109 Armenia 4.09 Hybrid regime
110 Burundi 4.01 Hybrid regime
111 Haiti 4 Hybrid regime
111 Iraq 4 Hybrid regime
113 Madagascar 3.94 Authoritarian regime
114 Kuwait 3.88 Authoritarian regime
115 Mauritania 3.86 Authoritarian regime
116 Morocco 3.79 Authoritarian regime
117 Jordan 3.74 Authoritarian regime
118 Ethiopia 3.68 Authoritarian regime
119 Fiji 3.62 Authoritarian regime
120 Burkina Faso 3.59 Authoritarian regime
121 Cuba 3.52 Authoritarian regime
122 Bahrain 3.49 Authoritarian regime
123 Nigeria 3.47 Authoritarian regime
124 Togo 3.45 Authoritarian regime
125 Algeria 3.44 Authoritarian regime
126 Cameroon 3.41 Authoritarian regime
126 Comoros 3.41 Authoritarian regime
128 Niger 3.38 Authoritarian regime
128 Gambia 3.38 Authoritarian regime
130 Belarus 3.34 Authoritarian regime
131 Angola 3.32 Authoritarian regime
132 Kazakhstan 3.3 Authoritarian regime
133 Gabon 3.29 Authoritarian regime
134 Rwanda 3.25 Authoritarian regime
135 Azerbaijan 3.15 Authoritarian regime
136 People’s Republic of China 3.14 Authoritarian regime
137 Qatar 3.09 Authoritarian regime
138 Egypt 3.07 Authoritarian regime
139 Côte d’Ivoire 3.02 Authoritarian regime
140 Vietnam 2.94 Authoritarian regime
141 Swaziland 2.9 Authoritarian regime
142 Republic of the Congo 2.89 Authoritarian regime
143 Oman 2.86 Authoritarian regime
144 Guinea 2.79 Authoritarian regime
144 Tunisia 2.79 Authoritarian regime
146 Zimbabwe 2.64 Authoritarian regime
146 Yemen 2.64 Authoritarian regime
148 United Arab Emirates 2.52 Authoritarian regime
149 Tajikistan 2.51 Authoritarian regime
150 Afghanistan 2.48 Authoritarian regime
151 Sudan 2.42 Authoritarian regime
152 Eritrea 2.31 Authoritarian regime
152 Syria 2.31 Authoritarian regime
154 Djibouti 2.2 Authoritarian regime
155 Democratic Republic of the Congo 2.15 Authoritarian regime
156 Laos 2.1 Authoritarian regime
157 Guinea-Bissau 1.99 Authoritarian regime
158 Libya 1.94 Authoritarian regime
158 Iran 1.94 Authoritarian regime
160 Equatorial Guinea 1.84 Authoritarian regime
160 Saudi Arabia 1.84 Authoritarian regime
162 Central African Republic 1.82 Authoritarian regime
163 Burma 1.77 Authoritarian regime
164 Uzbekistan 1.74 Authoritarian regime
165 Turkmenistan 1.72 Authoritarian regime
166 Chad 1.52 Authoritarian regime
167 North Korea 1.08 Authoritarian regime
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Food for thought:
From the list, Indonesia, formerly under suharto (long term one political party dictator and pal of lky) is now placed at 60 (as compared to singapore’s 82nd position).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
not that anyone is complaining its the gonmin’s fault for the lack of progress in democracy, if we were to find fault, the finger has to point at the People. The people is responsible for progress of democracy . They by right are the driving force behind it.
Look no further for the root cause. Its the People.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If Singapores democarcy is a farce, then the policies that come with it all make sense
from CPF,GST, Million dollar salaries, HDB inflated housing, low birth rate, etc
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
36 Taiwan 7.52 Flawed democracy
57 Thailand 6.55 Flawed democracy
60 Indonesia 6.53 Flawed democracy
71 Malaysia 6.19 Flawed democracy
74 Philippines 6.12 Flawed democracy
80 Hong Kong 5.92 Hybrid regime
82 Singapore 5.89 Hybrid regime
What a shame to be compared to our neighbors we can’t even call ourselves a democratic country rather to be labelled a “regime”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
GUESS THE MIWS GUARD SO HARD against democracy because that would mean they will lose their ‘FALSE’ MERITOCRACY.
As it is now,they can just brush away mistakes and failures as cuaght offguard or blame it on innocent citizens and even the gods.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think there are harassments in jobs and work places too especially when the bosses cahooting with FT bosses who wanted Singaporeans to impart their work intellectual property to the FTs…in the end most singaporeans are paid “peanuts”…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dun keep blamin establishment. The people could change everything if they choose to. Have they?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How do we distinguish hybrid regimes from democracies?
1. Elections are biased towards the ruling government eg. state resources used to promote ruling party, opposition denied media coverage, some manipulation of results, right to contest only given to some opposition groups.
2.Infringement on political rights and civil liberties eg. harassment of opposition candidates and supporters, freedom of press restricted, voting rights restricted.
Hybrid regimes require a delicate balancing act. The ruling government must make elections democratic enough to appear legitimate, or at least appear acceptable to the domestic and international public. The ruling government stays in power.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
US is full democracy.. this article is cock la
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In Asia there are four “Big Devil” 1) Suharto & Marcos has gone. Left Mathatir & LkY these two are waiting for their turn.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Whose head to roll in Temasek now..? – Today, 02:09 AM
JAKARTA – INDONESIA’S anti-monopoly and competition regulator has reportedly said it wants Temasek Holdings’ Indonesian assets to be seized, putting the Singapore investment firm’s troubles here back under the spotlight.
=============================
In another life, the Head of an organisation will be made to resign.
So what now from here..and will the lap dog ST publish the truth about these shenanigans.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Whiteh dan spurm, Daft frog
The problem with the establishment is that it is the PAP who keeps redrawing boundaries with GRCs and shifting everything to their favour that keeps the opposition in limbo. Many of the people in Singapore have had barely a chance to vote at all in their entire lifetime with all the redrawn boundaries and walkovers. Donations for political parties for the opposition are also deprived of funds by donors if the donors are not approved, thus, depriving opposition parties from funds whereas the PAP is already rich enough to easily fund itself.
(http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-236&doctitle=POLITICAL%20DONATIONS%20ACT&date=latest&method=part)
Want to organize a rally? Ans for Opposition = no. PAP = by all means!
Walkabout? Ans for Opposition = we’ll arrest you if you got no approval(which you’ll never get EVER even if you applied for it in the first place). PAP = oh, sir, please inform us the next time before you do it. We, the police, will check and clear the area of troublemakers to keep it safe for you.
Talk too much truth? Opposition = sue you till you are bankrupt. PAP = they did it so they deserve it! let’s humiliate them!
Fair? The people can change everything? Please reconsider your remarks and base them on reality this time.
Thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
82nd place for Singapore is far too kind and flattering.
Singapore should place a few places above North Korea.
Singapore is a dictatorship — not even a hybrid regime state.
The Economist is far too kind to Singapore and got it wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
cslamsg:
December 22, 2010 at 12:57 am cslamsg(Quote)
I think there are harassments in jobs and work places too especially when the bosses cahooting with FT bosses who wanted Singaporeans to impart their work intellectual property to the FTs…in the end most singaporeans are paid “peanuts”…
…………………………………………..
HI
MY FRIEND,what you mention is part of the truth.
the other part of the whole truth is that our govt,this PAP govt,is letting it all happen.
never in the history of FREE DEMOCRACY has any govt BETRAY its own ciitzens te way faithful and loyal SINGApoEANS have been betrayed.
many among us have either personally expereinced this FIRST HAND or know of some relatives ,friends or colleagues becoming victims of such abusive UNETHICAL HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICE.
CIVIC SOCIETIES here NEED TO LOOK INTO THIS MATTER URGENTLY.
it is indeed sad to see our once COHESIVE,CO-OPERATIVE AND COLLEGIAL CITIZENRY turn into such a bad state of bullying and victimsing and plain abuse at our workplaces; a result of GREEDY EMPLOYERS AND THEIR LIEUTENANTS and a highly SELF-SERVING ‘uncaring’ GOVT.
‘where have all the good leaders gone’?
long time passing…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Democracy thrives on Dissent..!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
well i think most of us are too carried away that we have lost the grasp of the entirety of the existence of this discussion. Again most seemed to be easily taken the ‘emotional bait’.
The current leadership has flawed greatly but they did it without being careless… As such they have been able to penetrate the system and established themselves as the root of a tree. How does someone uproot a tree without damaging it? I tell you we are fighting a losing battle. Should the current leadership loose the GE and leaves, they will leave with the potential.
What resource does Singapore have other than what they have created for their own personal gains? This war(metaphorically speaking) will not end without blood(metaphorically speaking). Instead of going against them i think we should worry on an exit strategy. Look at the bigger picture and you’ll see a very sad portrait.
The opposition party does not have the capacity or power to defend us if the current leadership decides to be a sour grape.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
36 Taiwan 7.52 Flawed democracy 57 Thailand 6.55 Flawed democracy 60 Indonesia 6.53 Flawed democracy 71 Malaysia 6.19 Flawed democracy 74 Philippines 6.12 Flawed democracy 80 Hong Kong 5.92 Hybrid regime 82 Singapore 5.89 Hybrid regime What a shame to be compared to our neighbors we can’t even call ourselves a democratic country rather to be labelled a “regime”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Additional Thoughts:
If Indonesia, a country striving towards first world economy has been able to achieve dictatorial regime change (for and to the betterment of it’s people), and now having a healthier state of democracy compared with Singapore, then it should not be overly difficult for a physically and demographically (much) smaller Singapore which is ‘first world’ to achieve this change.
As fellow forumers on this thread have spelt out, it’s the PEOPLE that will ultimately make the difference as to whether we want to remove Singapore’s present regime. The precise point in time when this happens is when the majority of us feel that ‘there’s nothing left to loose’.
Our fellow ASEANs from Indonesia have proven without doubt that getting rid of it’s former dictator (suharto and his associates) has NOT brought any long term economic downfall to it’s country and people, BUT has ultimately brought about a much healthier political environment and a prosperous and thriving economy.
To say again.
The precise point in time when this happens in Singapore is when the majority of us feel that there will be nothing left to loose. The only questions then to ask is how will it all pan out, and, will the fading governing regime graciously cede power ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This country intimidates political opponents and its citizens and keeps giving excuses for almost any screw up.
All the minister have never ending excuses such as freak flood, hdb/medical is affordable, ft increases pay blah blah. Nothing we can do, we are silence of the lambs!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
its a laughing stock man… we are so far behind our closest ASEAN neighbours
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If ppl want to cast change vote but afraid , they just need to help ensure many cast. Change together. Like this if confirm change , the fear will not materialize .
Fear should not be the excuse for change .
If it is, then it’s clear the people is accountable. Point finger at the people above all else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In the Coming GE, 66.6% Sgans should show to MM that they are NOT DAFT.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When the government can pay themselves whatever over the wishes of the people, there cannot be any form of democracy.
Would they put the issue of their salaries to a referendum and see how they are viewed by the people?
Absolutely shameless and yes, they are not corrupt!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Economist got it wrongj. We should be ranked 166, second last above North Korea or even joint last. There has never been a democracy at all since PAP took over. The PAP commercial product is called, ‘Bullshit’ sold to the people of Singapore.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
time to throw out this dictatorial regime, controlled by one family
Singapore does not belong to one family
what a shame , dictators passing comments of leadership of neigbouring countries, at least they are not dictators,
Please look yourself into mirror and see your ugly face,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I do feel that the hybrid regime is working for us for the past 5 decades till recently where people are becoming more affluent and also demanding more from their government.
Hence my suggestion is for PAP to rid the GRC format and stop rewriting their constituents boundaries to make it an unfair game for the opposition. And on the other hand, oppositions need to buck up and grow to government standard before the people will have confidence in voting for them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@NoodleWon
You are spot on! do you all know why MM called Singaporeans DAFT? Because Singaporeans keep voting for PAP to screw all Singaporeans all the time!!!!!!!! Don’t believe me? go ask MM! It’s a clear agenda and mandate to keep screwing you guys for self (PAP) serving. They will keep putting their hand in the cookie jar! It’s all easy money for them and they are definitely not talents but thieves!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Our basic democratic rights are even worse off compared to Malaysia, Thailand, Phillipines, Indonesia and even India.
What a joke our PAP leaders has made out of Singaporeans.
Thanks for the shit, LKY!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ah tan.
You should not be called ah tan but should be called as “ah gao” (meaning PAP dog). hahahaaa……
Mod: Pls refrain from engaging in personal attacks. Thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Singapore should be place in a special category call “Dictatorial mask as Hybrid regime”
There’s only one such country in the world and it’s Singapore.
“In these states political pluralism is absent by means of legal prosecution followed economic devastation, sometime by means of sending opposition to mental institution and systematically using the state own press to discredit and character assassination. They are very well connected to the western democracy and Dictator are well educated in western universities ivy league. Some formal institutions of democracy may exist, but they are more of a showcase to hoodwink the world . Elections, if they do occur, are not free and fair, conducted by allowing the rumor that one working in the government or government link companies will have their career destroyed. There is disregard for abuses and infringements of civil liberties. Media are state-owned mask as a public listed company with independent board of Directors and Editors, who are all powerful party cronies and Internal Security Officer from the Home affairs task to monitor and control for the ruling regime. There is repression of criticism of then government and pervasive censorship. There is no independent judiciary as the court is own by the Dictator, all judges are appointed by the regime serving the regime and not the nation nor their people. One simple litmus test is to check on all past judgment hand down by the courts that concern the Dictator’s court cases, one will see that they never loose a single case against when it concern an opposition political party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Singapore is a REPUBLIC.
Which means that if you are going to have demo-Crazy it has to be limited to protect individual rights and minorities from the tyranny of the majority. — which occurs when the majority can vote your rights and private property away, and FORCE you to adopt their ‘morality’, ‘culture’ and whatever else the MOB decides to do.
The PAP might not be ‘perfect’ and at time are an annoyance, and can be downright tyrannical in certain areas. However they are still a far better option than a full-blown democracy.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
20 South Korea 8.11 Full democracy
22 Japan 8.08 Full democracy
40 India 7.28 Flawed democracy
55 Sri Lanka 6.64 Flawed democracy
57 Thailand 6.55 Flawed democracy
60 Indonesia 6.53 Flawed democracy
71 Malaysia 6.19 Flawed democracy
80 Hong Kong 5.92 Hybrid regime
82 Singapore 5.89 Hybrid regime
83 Bangladesh 5.87 Hybrid regime
singapore a 1st world country ?
Yes !!! bcos we are better than Bangladesh !!!
well done PAPaya and the 66.6% voters !!!
hopefully , we’ll join N.korea and Burma in 10 years times !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Democracy: The God That Failed | Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Prof Hoppe discusses the book busting the myths held in history, economics and political science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
KojakBT – thank you for the list.
Shame on our government always saying that Singapore is a 1st world Singapore. Based on GDP only? Hahaha…look at this stats on democracy – we are at 82 with a flawed regime. But then look again carefully, where is Papua New Guinea? Oh at 59? And PNG has at least a democracy….PNG where people there are still with bows and arrows and like in their huts!!! Oh look again, Timor-Leste, a country that just got it’s independence in the last decade or so. But Singapore, since 1965. Wow. We can even be lower then PNG, Timor-Leste, Botswana, Namibia….all these are better than our Singapore. How great.
Now where is our Shitty Times, CNA and AsiaOne? Have they reported this? Where is our ministers….why dont they open their mouth and say that this EIU findings and report is flawed. The opposition should take this report to the rallies in the coming elections.
Ahhh, now we can demand – “Down with this regime”. We/I didn’t say we have a regime in Singapore – EIU said this. It’s they who define what a regime is and classified Singapore as a country ruled by regime. Like Idi Amin of Uganda?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Do you prefer to live in Singapore or in India or in Bangladesh?
If Singaporeans were so dissatisfied, why is the ruling party still the ruling party after countless elections?
Finally, what have YOU done to improve Singapore besides posting ignorant comments anonymously on online forums?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
We, the native citizens of Singapore, would vote for the Opposition Parties in so that PAP can spend time ‘fixing’ them rather then we vote the PAPs in to ‘FIX’ us!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
for forefathers:
December 22, 2010 at 5:52 am for forefathers(Quote)
hi there are greater ‘POTENTIAL’ among true blue singaporeans than what the blur sotongs of miws possess.
how many are the top honchos and their lieutenants who are ‘bullshitting’ in our corporations losing billions that nobody could question and still sitting pretty up there?
it is a falsehood that these miws are talents;a few are,most are not!
if you were to tell me that the OLD GUARDS were some sort of talents,i would have unrestraintly agree on the most part but not all these ‘BLOOD-SCUKING’ pests – they are hopelessly useless.
many LCOAL TALENTS have in truth been kicked out fo their jobs which they most worthily performed by some idiots who merely politick around the office by boot-licking and back-stabbing.
the reality is that such idiots depend on others to do the real work but claim all the glory and honour and MONEY!
THIS IS THE SIN OF THE GLOBALISED WORLD where greed overcome many RICH AND POWERFUL who treat their people like toilet rolls and dispensed them off once they have make full use of them.
the trouble the global economy is in is precisely because too many honest hardworking productive workers here,and all over the entire globe.have been displaced and replace by other boot-licking idiots who now serve the idiotic top company men/women still holding to their jobs and high wages despite the fact that they are the UNPRODUCTIVE ONES;if they are not,the global economy would have long recovered,is not it???
sad that most average singaporeans buy the daft idea of a lie that only the MIWs and their lackeys can ’save’ SINGAPORE.
On the contrary,if you look hard enough,they are the ones destroying our future and that of this once beautiful and truly progreesive Nation.
this can be easily testifeid by the upsurge in teenage gnags and murders and incidents of suicides in our midst.
too many ordinary singaporeans have been made LESS ORDINARY!
IS ALL THIS CALL ‘PROGRESS’?
YOU TELL ME,PLEASE.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A. I PREFER TO LIVE IN A TRULY DEMOCRATIC SINGAPORE.
A. BECAUSE SINGAPOREANS ARE “DAFT”.
A. GETTING READY TO VOTE FOR OPPOSITION.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
S’pore should be ranked the same as Burma — 163.
Both have authoritarian regimes that do not tolerate dissent.
Both have elections that are heavily tilted towards the favoured party, often using public funds and civil servants to promote the favoured party.
Both lock up major political opponents for many years, sometimes without trial. If there is a trial, usually it is so one-sided that it is a farce and the punishment out of proportion to any precedents in other developed countries.
At least Burma better — it still allows Aung San Su Kyi to occasionally meet outsiders, be seen in the press, and at least given a sham court hearing. In S’pore major political opponents can simply disappear for decades, dunno locked in Changi or in some underground bunker in Mandai area.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The most democracy countries mostly in crisis now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
haha, at least SG almost topped for hybrid regime!!!
=)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Download entire PDF here:
http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf
Surprised to see Brunei missing from index. Wonder why!
Just one point:
114 Kuwait 3.88 Authoritarian regime
122 Bahrain 3.49 Authoritarian regime
137 Qatar 3.09 Authoritarian regime
143 Oman 2.86 Authoritarian regime
148 United Arab Emirates 2.52 Authoritarian regime
160 Saudi Arabia 1.84 Authoritarian regime
The citizens of these regimes, and Brunei, have it so good that no one there gives a damn whether democracy is making any progress. I am inclined to think that Singaporeans would similarly not care if the gahmen gave them insane benefits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Singapore is a true dynasty but is a fake democracy. Can’t you people see that. No wnoder your leaders call you people dafts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you kojakbt as it saves many of us the effort to Google for it.
Will the MSM newsprint DARE to print the list kojakbt uploaded here? OF COURSE NOT as the CEO is held beholden to this allegiance by his job, wonderful remunerations and comforts! Dr. Tony Tan presence in SPH as Chairman and an ex-PAP is a deterrent. Even though he walked out of LKY & PAP with Danabalam on account of LHL slapping incident of Dana!
And so Hybrid Regime for Singapore is quite true as most apt. As I’ve shared in TR that Singapore has 3 Political Systems as follows…
1. Somewhat Capitalist for economy and business as LKY has no choice.
2. Republican for government administration. For example for well-known and easier understanding sake… That of Republican US President George W. Bush’s 8 years! He bulldozed many policies through and even made the now famous case of Saddam’s WMD to UN for invading Iraq! His Vice-President Dick Cheney an ex-boss of Halliburton (Gulf of Mexico Oil Rig explosion) culprit, did other compromising and bulldozing stuff too
3. Ruling Citizens with partial democracy for living, working and freedom which is stymied by restrictive laws making “man benefit the laws” as it benefit Lee kuan yew and his government to perpetuate itself in regime authority.
NOTE: After all LKY had said in his early days as PM of what he called “Guided DEMOcracy” without ever explaining what he actually meant! When has this guy ever defined anything he said anyway? (“DEMO” in caps is just my pun).
So… Didn’t Lee Kuan Yew in recently months just promoted his latest book “From the 3rd to the 1st” in Russia! And Russia is also a “Hybrid Regime” placed 107th. Very charming! PRC is in 136th place as Authoritarian Regime!
Lee Kuan Yew sure knows who he can and has to SNUG up to leh!
And even Bolivia and Hong Kong are just ahead of us resp. in 81st & 80th place as Hybrid Regime. HK is obviously due to China’s “One nation 2 Systems” policy with PRC itself in 136th place as Authoritarian Regime. But Bolivia?… That’s quite another thing!
So… is Lee Kuan Yew and PAP then not A CONudrum and a conuDRUM? he was educated in UK Cambridge and LHL too.
And Woody Goh’s daughter likely found love in an English Gentleman that she couldn’t find in a Singaporean not meeting her standard? Like one NOT with his father’s PAP Regime? Or NOT find one who is quiescent and coward by the LKY-PAP’s authoritarian rule and acts of non-democratic indecencies in “Detention of political opponents without trials for up to 32 years (Chia Thai Poh longest)! So, did she happen to fall in love with a noble English Gentlemen or was it more than that. She’s not stupid right? Your guess is as good as mine if we know what we know hor! United Kingdom is 19th place in Full Democracies!
——————————————————
And now for the EEIC’s report card…
1. Pathetically and sadly there’s ONLY 26 country with FULL Democracy!
2. And double at 53 countries as Flawed Democracy!
3. 31 countries in Hybrid Regime and Singapore is “gloriously grateful” to LKY for being in 3rd place there!
4. The rest of the 56 countries are all Authoritarian Regime!
5. 141 countries ARE non-Full Democracy! – Charming world!
Q. So Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew in effectively in 56 place of non-Full Democracy countries right! Thus LKY is still the “charming” of those who are not and ad UK grad too? Got it?
Don’t get me wrong. But this is an exercise in Analytical Critical Thinking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What s great shame, where is the soul of the PAP regime, they dont have one, they are money grabbers,
Singapore fall in the same category as Bangla Desh
pathetic Singapore,
Singapore is not a democratic country,
YOu cant assemble two or more people in singapore, it is against the law,
tell me which country has such a draconian law, are we still living in the era of cold war, stalin or Mao period
Even China do not have such a law
time for the PAP to go
Time for them to fuck off
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is Complete LEEgime, what hybrid regime???
@ Matilah, very funny, however you have majority voting for a elitist minority to take away your ‘rights’, ‘morality’, ‘freedom’, ‘property’ and strip you of your ‘future’. Voting in to PAP means they can do anything anyhow for 5 years. Whilst the 5 years you have no say. Mock democracy comes every 5 years, so good luck because when that day arrives (soon) people still vote with awe and fear.
Stress not, as only one hold the key to the survival of Singapore (according to PAP) until such time with the demise of that legend, Singapore (according to the citizens) will then begin to take shape.
There are a lot within the elite that are ready to spring treachery and betrayal (perhaps for self interest). They await because no one dares to touch the living idol
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ SensiblePR, glad you mentioned about the arab countries and Brunei.
But please refrain from such comparisons, these countries are Monarchies not democracy so your argument is flawed.
The citizens of these countries are very well protected, and unless you are an Arab or a Bruneian Malay, you cannot obtain PR not to mention citizenship even if you are born there and your family runs in a few generations.
That is the difference mate, unlike Singapore where any T, D or H can get PR or citizenship, but I hope you are one that contributes.
Qatar which recently won to host the World Cup in 2022 has a population of 1.77 million and only 700,000 are citizens.
But like you have said they have it good because their government protects the citizens, full stop
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RH: LIE KY LHL WKS crony Ministers, all cheat elections for personal gain, which in most cases like LIE KY = >S$6m a year, consisting of his current pay, concurrent pension at 2/3 of last drawn pay, GDP bonuses that can top several millions. With so much money at stake, it is no wonder LIE KY LHL WKS crony Ministers all cheat elections repeatedly for personal gain:–
RH: LKY LHL WKS ELECTION RIGGINGS EMAILED TO ALMOST ENTIRE GOVT:
http://i-came-i-saw-i-solved-it.blogspot.com/2010/06/lky-lhl-wks-election-riggings-emailed.html
Robert HO
28 Bukit Batok Street 52
#20-03 Guilin View
Singapore 659248
Tel: 68989553
CellPhone: 90127417
ME ON VIDEO DESCRIBING lky lhl wks NUMEROUS ELECTION RIGGINGS:
http://i-came-i-saw-i-solved-it.blogspot.com/search/label/%22A%20Video%20RH%20on%20LKY%20LHL%20WKS%20cheating%20elections%22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQCab3QZbBk
MY ACQUAINTANCE, MR DAVID DUCLOS, A FORMER POLICE INSPECTOR, AND HIS LAWYER FRIEND, EYEWITNESSED LEE KUAN YEW RIGGING THE 1997 CHENG SAN GRC ELECTION. READ MORE AT MY BLOG ENTITLED “I CAME, I SAW, I SOLVED IT” :
http://i-came-i-saw-i-solved-it.blogspot.com/
MY ONLINE POLICE REPORT ON LKY LHL WKS CHEATING ELECTIONS:
http://i-came-i-saw-i-solved-it.blogspot.com/2009/06/police-report-lee-ky-lhl-wks-cheating_02.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The following precedes the list posted by Kojakbt: December 21, 2010 at 10:59 pm Kojakbt(Quote). It is the EIU’s Introduction and Explanations of their Definitions that gives meaning to their Index Tables. There are in fact more columns in the many tables of the EIU providing a more detail picture for each country and regions. You are thus encouraged to go for more at:
http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf
Democracy index 2010
Democracy in retreat
A report from the Economist Intelligence Unit
http://www.eiu.com
Democracy index 2010
Democracy in retreat
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2010
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy 2010
Democracy in retreat
This is the third edition of the Economist Intelligence Unit’s democracy index. It reflects the situation as of November 2010. The first edition, published in The Economist’s The World in 2007, measured the state of democracy in September 2006 and the second edition covered the situation towards the end of 2008. The index provides a snapshot of the state of democracy worldwide for 165 independent states and two territories—this covers almost the entire population of the world and the vast majority of the world’s independent states (micro states are excluded).
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. Countries are placed within one of four types of regimes: full democracies; flawed democracies; hybrid regimes; and authoritarian regimes.
Free and fair elections and civil liberties are necessary conditions for democracy, but they are unlikely to be sufficient for a full and consolidated democracy if unaccompanied by transparent and at least minimally efficient government, sufficient political participation and a supportive democratic political culture. It is not easy to build a sturdy democracy. Even in long-established ones, if not nurtured and protected, democracy can corrode.
Democracy in decline
The global record in democratisation since the start of its so-called third wave in 1974, and acceleration after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, has been impressive.
According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s measure of democracy,
one-half of the world’s population now lives in a democracy of some sort. However, there has been a decline in democracy across the world since 2008. The decades-long global trend in democratisation had previously come to a halt in what Larry Diamond (2008) called a “democratic recession”. Now democracy is in retreat. The dominant
pattern in all regions over the past two years has been backsliding on previously attained progress in democratisation. The global financial crisis that started in 2008 accentuated some existing negative trends in political development.
Table 1
Democracy index, 2010, by regime type
No. of countries* % of countries* % of world population*
Full democracies 26* 15.6* 12.3*
Flawed democracies 53* 31.7* 37.2*
Hybrid regimes 33* 19.8* 14.0*
Authoritarian regimes 55* 32.9* 36.5*
Note. “World” population refers to the total population of the 167 countries covered by the index. Since this excludes only micro states, this is nearly equal to the entire actual estimated world population in 2010.
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit.
Democracy index 2010
Democracy in retreat
© The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2010
Disappointments abound across many of the world’s regions. Authoritarian trends have become even more entrenched in the Middle East and much of the former Soviet Union. Democratisation in Sub-Saharan Africa is grinding to a halt, and in some cases is being reversed. A political malaise in east-central Europe has led to disappointment and questioning of the strength of the region’s
democratic transition.
Media freedoms are being eroded across Latin America and populist forces with dubious democratic credentials have come to the fore in a few countries in the region. In the developed West, a precipitous decline in political participation, weaknesses in the functioning of
government and security-related curbs on civil liberties are having a corrosive effect on some long established democracies.
Reversals in or erosion of democracy and rising disenchantment with the results of some political liberalisations appear to have a variety of causes. The pace of democratisation was bound to slow after the “easy cases”—eager-to-liberalise east-central Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall and African regimes susceptible to outside pressure for political change.
“Hard cases” such as China and Middle East autocracies were always going to be a more difficult proposition. Autocrats have also learned how better to protect themselves; many of them preside over energy-rich states and have been strengthened by sustained high oil prices. A key factor is the de-legitimisation of much of the democracy-promotion agenda, which has been associated with military intervention and unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. A combination of double standards in foreign policy (autocrats can
be good friends as well as foes) and growing infringements of civil liberties has led to charges of hypocrisy against Western states.
Problems in the functioning of democracy in leading Western states diminish the scope for credible external democracy promotion. The US and UK are near the bottom of the “full democracy” category in our index. In the US, there has been an erosion of civil liberties related
to the fight against terrorism.
Problems in the functioning of government have also become more prominent. In the UK, there has also been some erosion of civil liberties, but the main feature is an exceptionally low level of political participation across all dimensions—voting turnout, membership of political parties and willingness to engage in and attitudes to political activity.
Although almost one-half of the world’s countries can be considered to be democracies, in our index the number of “full democracies” is low, at only 26 countries; 53 countries are rated as “flawed democracies”. Of the remaining 88 countries in our index, 55 are authoritarian and 33 are considered to be “hybrid regimes”.
As could be expected, the developed OECD countries dominate
among full democracies, although there are two Latin American countries, one east European country and one African country, which suggests that the level of development is not a binding constraint.
Only two Asian countries are represented: Japan and South Korea.
One-half of the world’s population lives in a democracy of some sort, although only 12% reside in full democracies. Some 2.5bn people, more than one-third of the world’s population, still lives under authoritarian rule (with a large share being, of course, in China).
Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf (application/pdf Object)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hi Quitor
how does it matter if a country is a monarchy or democracy, what matters is citizens get treated better than migrants. my point is: democracy and all that is good, but what is more important is citizen welfare. and arab states are clearly ahead of singapore in this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
just imagine: singapore remains as autocratic as ever, but changes the law so that citizens get free education and healthcare, special privileges in employment and setting up businesses, no income tax, no NS, able to withdraw CPF in full once you quit a job or retire….in such a scenario, how many Singaporeans would complain about lack of democracy? honestly…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@sensiblePR
Think you are missing the point. In an autocratic regime. Whatever you are given CAN always be taken away from you. You have NO say. You life, your freedom, your wealth, anything can disappear in an autocratic regime.
In an autocratic regime like in olden China, your best bet is that a wise leader come along. However as history shows, somewhere along the way, some inbreed will come along without any ability but got the throne passed down to him/her and the real party then begins and you as a citizen just got to suck it.
You guys really never watch TV at all? You don’t watch historical dramas of Chinese dynasties?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0