Not really. A boarding pass is required for airside access.

Exactly. Changi is no different than other airports - you can only access the ticketing and baggage arrival areas unless you have a boarding pass.

It does have a massive mall attached to the public area though (Jewel).

Yes but security is done at each individual gate which makes a massive difference. And the staff is nice and polite. I don't remember ever queing for anything at Changi and I've used it so much. It's about the only airport I don't hate these days.

Security at the individual gate is also done at Kuala Lumpur, Doha, and some others. I prefer the usual arrangement of a centralised security check. This stack exchange answer does a good job listing some of the advantages and disadvantages of security at the gate:

https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/34818/why-is-secu...

I think some of the space saving benefits are overstated. Baggage claim takes up a surprisingly large amount of space and you still need customs.

Security isn't done at the individual gate in Terminal 4 (newest terminal). And actually security screening at the gate is a pain in the ass. Once you're screened you're stuck in a room with no bathrooms (you need to leave and get rescreened). And if your flight changes gates (happened to me), you have to get rescreened all over again.

It is helpful in the sense that bottlenecks don't happen earlier on, but I'm not sure it's that great of an approach.

Changi is a stunning example of how beautiful an airport experience can be. I fly through there + Singapore airlines every chance I get. Perhaps a benevolent "dictatorship" can be beneficial.

“Benevolent” dictatorship

A single dictator has never really been the problem. You can find dictators that do better than democracies throughout history (especially on long-term planning).

It's the transition of power that's the problem. Like, a real bad problem. Like raze half your country and set you back 50-100 years problem.

What kind of dictator are you talking about? Roman-style, where it could be time limited, or the modern version, of which there are many terrible examples before power transition becomes an issue?

> could be time limited

Roman dictators weren't like modern autocrats. They were officials, appointed for a limited time (usually no more than 6 months) to address some specific emergency. They weren't crooks who staged coups. And it doesn't seem to have been a desirable appointment to hold; dictators often stood down before the time-limit.

I mean your technically correct that dictators were supposed to give up thier absolute power and indeed some did. But there is definitely a reason the term has adopted it current meaning.

The fact that there are terrible dictators does not invalidate the point that there are non-terrible dictators.

I think the GP's point was that even with "good" dictators, the problems come up when succession needs to happen, which is why "dictatorships" don't scale.

Democracy has a built-in mechanism to stop any bad thing from happening in a change of government, while ensuring that change happens often (at least in a good one).

> What kind of dictator are you talking about?

A ruler with absolute political power.

> ...modern version, of which there are many terrible examples before power transition becomes an issue?

This actually reinforces my point. I never denied the existence of bad dictators (or even that the majority of dictators are bad, I think that's quite likely). This would make the power transition for a country that happened to get a good one significantly more dangerous.

> It's the transition of power that's the problem.

That, and the lack of freedom, and the life you're subjected to when the dictator doesn't like you.