Japan-
  Shinzo Abe: 2012-current

  Singapore-
  Halimah Yacob: 2017-current
  Lee Hsien Loong: 2004-current

  South Korea-
  Moon Jae-in: 2017-current
  Lee Nak-yeon: 2017-current

  Taiwan
  Tsai_Ing-wen: 2016-current

I'll maybe give you Singapore's PM, but this is definitely not "decades".

had the same rulers/ruling party for decades

Alternatively (with apologies for playing a bit fast and loose in terms of President/Prime Minister/Secretary - political systems come in many shapes and sizes) and note that in some of these political party doesn't make much sense - when a military strongman stages a coup and holds power for a decade and a half, is there really a ruling political party?

    Japan-
    Liberal Democratic Party: 1955-1993, 1994-2009, 2012 to present

    Singapore-
    People's Action Party: 1959 to present
    Lee Kuan Yew: 1959 to 1990
    Goh Chok Tong: 1990 to 2004

    South Korea-
    Syngman Rhee: 1948 to 1960 (interestingly, exempted himself from an eight-year limit in 1954)
    Park Chung-hee: 1963 to 1979 (took power in military coup, assassinated)

    Taiwan-
    Chiang Kai-shek: 1950 to 1975
    Kuomintang Party: 1950 to 1996, had the advantage of being a single-party state until roughly late eighties

Definitely some decades in there.

That's goalpost motion, though. By that standard the Chinese policy change in the headline is a total nothingburger because the communist party has been in power since the revolution and will continue to be after Xi is dead.

Obviously, no: the headline is significant; east asian governments are subject to policy change and reform even within a single party rule; and this is a canard. There is a difference between indefinite rule by an abstract "party" and indefinite rule by an actual person. And China is crossing that gap.

That level of political discussion is beyond me. I'm just presenting some examples of East Asian countries that had the same ruler / ruling-party for decades.

What EliRivers described is exactly what I was referring to. And I don't think the "headline" is particular important btw.

How is removing hard limit on two terms "crossing that gap"? It'd be a much greater leap if Xi wants to rule indefinitely. Xi (and the communist party) wants stability, and he has to answer to what the people want to keep staying in power

I've lived in China, Singapore, and US for a long time. And I have to say Singapore government is apparently the most reasonable one out of the three. It most likely also have highest approval rate.

Even Singapore's PM was given a popular mandate via parliamentary elections. Singapore and the PAP has some aspects of authoritarianism, but it still believes deeply in the rule of law.

I would encourage further self-directed historical research if you honestly believe this to be the case. Some starters: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33621862 https://www.talkingdrugs.org/singapore-supports-burmas-drug-... https://www.smh.com.au/news/business/singapore-a-friend-inde... https://books.google.com/books?id=VQyX-pExxvMC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA... https://thediplomat.com/2015/02/soft-repression-the-struggle... http://sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/339300

Halimah Yacob is the President, not the Prime Minister, very different positions. Look up "Minister Mentor."

Lee Hsien Loong is LKY's son.

Those leaders had mandates from the people in any case, via elections they could lose. Unless you are talking about the Taiwan and South Korea dictators of Mao’s era.

Yes. I was in particular refering to how these countries were ruled during their "growth period".

The Chinese communist obviously don't have a democratic mandate. But I think it would be a mistake to think that they don't have widespread popular support.

I don’t think it’s really about individuals though. For every country with a long period of continuous successful rule, I can point you to a country with a long period of failed rule, such as Zimbabwe.

The point is, no matter how great Hu is as an individual the danger is that granting him perpetual unquestioned power creates a precedent for a future monster to gain a similar lock on power. In a democracy, the voters can depose a monster peacefully. In the cureent Chinese system a monster would only get 2 terms. So the question is, are you prepared to accept Hu getting power to life, at the risk of a future person to get it being a Mugabe, or Gaddafi, or Amin?

In a system with very few constraints on absolute power, is it really prudent in the long term to remove all of the remaining ones? Finally, how much can you trust the judgement of someone willing to impose that risk on his country for his own benefit?

I don't think Mao's time could be considered very equivalent to today. There were a lot of dictators around after WW2, but many gave way to stable democracies, and those that didn't weren't prosperous.

The problem with the CCP is that there is no real feedback loop. Their support is very fragile, and it would just take one recession to break it (they have no "lets throw the turkey's out" pressure valve).

I think it is quite relevant. China is undergoing today what Japan went thru at Mao's time.

My guess is that CCP is going to be popular and safe at the realm as long as growth is strong (so maybe we agree there).

Growth isn't going to always be strong. Economic cycles are inevitable, even if they manage to kick the can of a correction down the road today, it will just come back worse in the future.

People in China can only express their discontent by rioting (which happens in China, a lot). They have no other real way of communicating with officials, they can't even make sneaky jokes on the internet anymore to express their dissatisfaction. That alone is a very dangerous situation.