> > rose to power on a platform of communism
  > This is the funniest part.

Not just funny, but suspiciously racist. Ethnic Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia were branded as communist all through the 1950s and 1960s and, especially in Indonesia, slaughtered. contingencies sounds like he might be from one of the non-Chinese ethnic groups in SE Asia, or part of such a family.

He's not wrong that there's deep racism in Singapore. But it goes both ways. Singapore was ejected from the Malaysian Federation for baldly racist reasons--the ethnic Malays wanted to consolidate political power. The Chinese in that region are like the Jews of Europe--economically successful but culturally still the out group. It creates a ton of resentment for all sides.

Also, I've traveled widely throughout the world and turns out _everybody_ is racist. The U.S. is probably one of the least racist countries in the world. Why? Because we _talk_ about it and _admit_ it. In the vast majority of countries people still literally take for granted that ethnic group X is obviously naturally inferior, without making the connection between that belief and the Western concept of racism.

In the U.S. even the most rabid racists go through great lengths to justify and explain their prejudice. Believe it or not, that's what progress looks like. People need to stop using racism as a cudgel as it makes it impossible for people to discuss issues of racism. It's like calling somebody Hitler--it just ends the conversation. Ultimately it makes it easier for people to stay in denial about racism.

Sorry, I should have said "platform of socialism". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Action_Party#Politi...

I do not appreciate your made up comments about my character. For the record I am not: (a) of SEA-origin; (b) within such a family; or (c) racist.

> Not just funny, but suspiciously racist.

Absolutely. The flagged comment espoused so much hatred that I wouldn't want any Singaporean to hear it.

Really sickening.

The only properties of the society discussed with the exception of political history were "a significantly racially charged, class-entrenched society". How exactly is summarizing factual and historical properties of a society espousing hatred? Some of the comments here, including this one, are just plain illogical.

I'm a little shocked that your comment was flagged for supposedly being hateful. Even if it can be seen as a matter of opinion and not entirely factual, it wasn't hateful to me in any conventional sense of hate.

It is laughable what people are saying here, that they wouldn't want any Singaporeans to read it. What?

You must have never been to Europe. Just look how many black people live in poverty in the US, and how many are shot dead every day.

Europeans know all about American racism. But Americans know very little about European racism, especially modern European racism. Ever wonder why that is?

That's my point. In most parts of the world someone could discuss American issues of racism like they studied under Cornel West. 5 minutes later they might say, in an off-handed comment, that group X is lazy and/or mostly criminals. And they'll never make the connection. It's mind-boggling.

Which isn't to say that plenty of Americans don't deny racism. They just have to work much harder at it, and they at least realize that their opinion is non-normative (even if it's technically the majority opinion).

Europe is racist as all get out. I, as a brown man, never once felt like I belonged or had a chance of belonging. Urban America on the other hand never made me feel out of place (More rural places are different: my wife and I still get asked if we need separate checks).

I agree that Europe is racist unfortunately however I recollect serious ghettos in New York. I stayed on a Jewish Street in Brooklyn and there were practically 90% orthodox Jews in the area who avoided me like the plague (I'm white)... I walked a few blocks south and I was the only white guy. The black people there were very friendly and helpful but I could tell my presence was a novelty. I've never seen anything like that in Europe. The other thing that I notice is that race is on the top of everyone's mind all the time in the states to the point that it is a serious problem even when it shouldn't be.

I agree with the general point that the US is less racist than European nations, but ignoring the larger point that the situation of the black American community is very much a product of decades long racist policies to systematically deny them the opportunity to build wealth seems very disingenuous to me.

Im not ignoring it. Other commenters are focusing on it to the exclusion of massive impact on whites caused by rural or lower-class discrimination. They also never bring up systematic discrimination against whites in black-run cities or companies. They focus on one talking point to promote a specific narrative. Im calling that out.

Maybe the fact that the overwhelming majority of cities and companies in the US are run by whites has something to do with that.

I doubt it. That America, with all its strengths and wesknesses, is mostly white is a weird thing that always comes up in Singapore threads. Someone always does an America comparison, ususlly dismissal, by bringing up white-on-black racism. It's like people are indoctrinated on specific talking points or something. That and the idea all Americans are set to bd wiped away with violent crime. I havent seen it here yet but it's another that showed up dozens of times when Singaporeans counterpoint on blogs.

Who knows what your background is but Im calling the oversimplification when I see it. I suggest Singapore drop those talking points to compare cost of capitalism in US with law benefitting mostly owners to their "give some get some model" benefiting their people in general. That would be more fair given America is a plutonomy.

White-on-black racism is not so much a talking point as a fact of American life. There is no oversimplification there. I have no idea what kind of rhetoric is involved in Singaporean dialogue, but that is entirely irrelevant to what I'm saying.

Capitalism isn't inherently racist, but it also has no intrinsic qualities that help it repair the ill-effects of past racist policies.

The sub-thread is on white-on-black racism in USA in a thread about Singapore. That's why I called it a talking point or something barely relevant. Im done with it on this one.

This is a good comment and equally applies to the original post that started this thread.

"In Singapore we have National Service. "

Although not in this debate, I am stepping in to point out that doesn't mean a thing to support your point. It even makes you look like you're stretching facts to cover up problems. Let me illustrate it with a more obvious example.

Let's say the country has rich people's kids ending up in rich people jobs, middle class mostly middle class, and poor rarely coming up. This is the U.S. rather than Singapore. Let's say we add NS to the mix where everyone is forced to do a specific thing. The economic structure stays exactly the same since that has nothing to do with it. It's people's money, ability to teach kids better/worse, and connections to institutions that increase effectiveness of those kids along with what opportunities they have. I'd be shocked if this didn't happen in Singapore simply because it happens everywhere that I can tell.

> Although not in this debate, I am stepping in to point out that doesn't mean a thing to support your point.

From a research report from a local university: The institution of National Service is largely regarded as a social equaliser, which embodies fairness, equality and identity. More than 94% of respondents agree that Servicemen from different family backgrounds are treated equally during National Service, and that National Service policies are applied consistently to everyone in similar situations. [1]

In other words, it doesn't matter if you are the son of a millionaire or a janitor, in the army, they treat you the same. Beyond that it forces people to meet people from all sorts of socio-economic levels. And National Service extends until you are around 40 years old, whereby every year they may call you up to serve alongside CEOs', professionals, blue collar workers etc in the army.

Singapore is a very rich country, and it is inevitable that there are the very rich, and the less wealthy. What the government has done is made a very affordable world-class education system that allows everybody an equal chance to equip themselves to succeed in life.

[1] http://docplayer.net/17167540-Institute-of-policy-studies-su...

"The institution of National Service is largely regarded as a social equaliser, which embodies fairness, equality and identity. More than 94% of respondents agree"

Which doesn't argue against my point at all. I already illustrated where classism comes from and how it can only be one component. You'd have to address the others. Instead, you said a bunch of people surveyed in a police state said the police state plan was good. I've even read plenty of dissent on Singaporeans' blogs and stuff on that one so it's extra funny to see such overwhelming support.

In any case, what numbers and citations you should look for are what percentage of Singaporeans change classes and which transitions those work. Especially how often the poor become Middle Class and how often lower classes become upper class. Additionally, how often do upper classes become lower class. These will assess how much education and performance really matters vs their background or social connections. For example, in the U.S., the last number I saw quoted was 90+% of people stay in their economic class no matter what efforts put in. Most on boards or C-level positions also started as middle or upper class in "Ivy League" schools. So, our system is rigged to operate based on politics and reinforce current class situation as proven by its results.

So, what's Singapore's numbers on that? And could you even get accurate ones with its control over media?

One problem with comparing those stats across nations is that having centuries of stability will make those stats look a lot worse. Right after a big event like WW II, much of your lot in the world was the result of bad luck -- there were lots more highly-capable poor people, who were likely to move up in life, or whose children were (because of inherited personality traits). A few generations later, a lot of them have moved up, and social mobility will be smaller. You'd expect Singapore to have more social mobility than white America, for this reason alone.

There are also other factors that can help or hurt, like everybody living in the same city.

Well, you know, originally the PAP was allied with the communists. To the point where it seemed informative to describe them as more likely to be crypto-anti-communist than crypto-communist in an internal British communication, based on personal impressions more than anything.

I have visited Singapore since the 1980s.

The evidence you ask for was already provided before your comment; clearly you didn't bother to read the thread.

National Service is fascist, and does not at all imply that the society is classless. In fact, from an anthropological perspective it could be construed that military organization is historically the most caste-ridden of all human societies due to its formal recognition of rank.

communism

Sorry, I should have said socialism. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Action_Party#Politi... ... Initially adopting a traditionalist Leninist party organisation, together with a vanguard cadre from its labour-leaning faction in 1958, the PAP Executive later expelled the leftist faction, bringing the ideological basis of the party into the centre, and later in the 1960s, moving further to the right.

Actually, I'd argue that something like NS, its merits not being discussed here, does do good for social cohesion and cultural integration.

When everyone is (relatively) equal and put through something comparatively arduous, it does good things for helping people gel together. It also probably helps instill a common sense of belonging to a nation.

I'd attribute at least some of Singapore's ability to cultivate a sense of national identity to things like NS.

From what I've seen, Singapore is fairly racist, but in the sense that pretty much everywhere and everyone is racist without very conscious mental effort. That said, Singapore seems pretty well integrated and culturally inclusive considering what a melting pot it is especially on the ground at the interpersonal level. I imagine that as such a small state, these things are easier to micromanage for a government though. Additionally, nothing kills xenophobic sentiment faster than exposure, and as a small city-state, Singapore also provide favorable conditions for that too.

> Actually, I'd argue that something like NS, its merits not being discussed here, does do good for social cohesion and cultural integration.

> When everyone is (relatively) equal and put through something comparatively arduous, it does good things for helping people gel together. It also probably helps instill a common sense of belonging to a nation.

> I'd attribute at least some of Singapore's ability to cultivate a sense of national identity to things like NS.

National Service is a tad tricky to discuss. While you mention that everyone is (relatively) equal when put through national service, that statement mainly refers to male citizens and second-generation permanent residents. Females, foreign students, and first-generation migrants aren't required to do so, and I can hardly see how they would be able to empathise with those who have had to undergo NS.

One other thing — imagine if one applies to a large MNC, and the hiring manager learns that the applicant might have to eventually fulfill their reservist liabilities and disappear for a month. If the applicant pool is global and there are no quotas to meet for local hires, it's very difficult to see how a competitive role based in Singapore might be filled by a Singaporean.

I can't really disagree with anything you're saying. Wrt to only males going through NS, I can imagine someone in the Sg govt making the assumption "if all men go through NS and bond, then when they start families, their wives will follow" - considering that they tried to convince the smart to pair off with the smart, I wouldn't put that line of reasoning past them.

As for quotas, I've heard a lot of people complain about them and how much of a pain it is to fill Singaporean headcount. Specifically on the subject of MNCs and reservists, I feel we're in an age where that could be easily seen as discrimination. Given we can't apply that to women who get pregnant, or people of religious origins (who may have additional holidays or fasting periods).