As it stands , girt by sea and flying an English flag?.discuss ...ting
..

This is to become mandatory for female Senators and MPs under the New Government...and the confused lads could fit well in one, too...

aquascoot wrote on Sep 6^th, 2025 at 6:18am:


Have you ever even set foot in Singapore?

It bears no resemblance to the fantasy you've just painted. Singapore doesn't "do the basics and let people flourish", it has one of the most interventionist governments in the developed world.

Roughly 80% of Singaporeans live in government-built HDB flats. The state not only subsidises and manages supply, it uses housing policy for social engineering, right down to ethnic quotas in each block to prevent enclaves. That's not minimal government, that's massive government involvement in people's lives.

The education system is equally hands-on. The government designs the curriculum, funds schools, pushes STEM and bilingualism, and uses scholarships and bonds to channel talent into sectors it deems essential. Students are streamed from an early age, it's as centralised and directive as you'll find in any developed country.

Economically, Singapore is the antithesis of "small government". Temasek and GIC, both state-owned, hold controlling stakes in airlines, banks, telcos, energy and logistics. The government doesn't just regulate, it is a direct participant in the economy, and its industrial policy is deliberate, long-term, and strategic.

And then there's social policy. From mandatory savings in the CPF, to restrictions on car ownership, to fines for everything from littering to chewing gum, the government actively shapes citizen behaviour at a micro level.

So yes, we could learn a lot from Singapore, but not in the way you imagine. What makes Singapore work isn't some laissez-faire fantasy, it's a government that plans, directs, and intervenes in ways that would make most Australians cringe.

Completely the opposite of the "minimal government" narrative you're pushing.

It works for them, and many would argue that such control is necessary when nearly six million people are packed into a space smaller than the Gold Coast, almost ten times the population in half the area.

Singapore is hard to compare to anywhere else in the world. If you're going to use it as an example, at least get the details right and don't just cherry-pick the one fact that suits your argument.

And yes, most people who push this line love to tout the tax system while conveniently ignoring the heavy government involvement in housing, education, the economy, and social policy that actually underpins their success.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 9^th, 2025 at 1:34pm:


Australia may be a better place to live in broad strokes, but there's no denying that Singapore executes certain things far more effectively than we ever do. Much of it can't simply be copied, our landmass and population are on an entirely different scale, but the sense of safety I felt walking the streets there, compared to anywhere in Australia, was unprecedented.

They've managed to avoid the rigid racial enclaves we struggle with and push a form of true multiculturalism, something we could genuinely learn from. Their obsession with food culture, making everything walkable, and backing it with a public transport system that actually works is another area where we lag, even if geography and density make it harder to replicate.

And yet, for a country with no natural resources to speak of, their achievements are remarkable. Meanwhile, we almost take pride, it seems, in squandering ours, handing them away practically for free and getting next to nothing in return. Perhaps that, too, is a core part of who we are, a part of our identity.

Australians have zero issue with Identity. Its a 100% bogus argument.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 9^th, 2025 at 1:34pm:


no poofs or drugos there for you?