Comments by "K `" (@user-jt3dw6vv4x) on "What Singaporeans Think Of China | Street Interview" video.

@reach2prasanna India is most definitely multiethnic. Just because they're all native to India doesn't erase the fact that they are all from different ethnic groups. You can easily break India up into 20 countries and it would make sense. You can't do that in a country like South Korea or Japan.
28
@asianprince8718 Not like the US or UK at all. Singaporeean society is a mix of Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasian people and influences. They've all influenced one another and Singaporean society basically revolves around CMIO (Chinese-Malay-Indian-Other). It is the most successful multiethnic nation in Asia, so much so that a survey revealed most Singaporeans believe class division is what most will experience discrimination for, not race. Nobody in Asia comes close to Singapore.
24
@Fals3Agent Actually most countries in Asia are muticutural. The difference is that most diverse Asian countries are made up of different ethnic groups native to these countries unlike Singapore where most people have migrated from other parts of Asia during the 17-19th centuries.
19
@莫念x酱 With that comment of yours, I don't think you're even Singaporean or know about Singapore.😁 The Malays are native to Singapore and the four founding political fathers (aka Lee Kuan Yew's political team and close friend group) had a Tamil politician.
11
༼ཆ༽ Singapore's ethnic demographics are 75.9% Chinese, 15% Malays, 7.5% Indians (mostly Tamils) and 1.6% others (mainly Eurasians). The percentage demographics won't change. Singapore uses the CMIO (Chinese-Malay-Indian-Other) model and this is in order to maintain Singapore's ethnic harmony. Extremely low fertility rates among the Chinese (0.94), Malays (1.83) and Indians (0.97) means the Singaporean government brings in migrants from certain other Asian countries to maintain the percentage demographics.
4
When a developing Asian nation employs democracy, they prevent development. Why? It's because whatever new policies and development that occur under one government can easily be overturned and stopped if a new government comes to power and we've seen this happen before.
4
@reach2prasanna Thank you for your comment. I still think there is hope for India because it still has a young population but India's window of opportunity is closing. The reason I say this is because India's fertility rate is now 2.0, its urban fertility is 1.6. Every state in India now has below replacement level fertility, except for 5 which also happen to be the poorest in the nation. That's pretty alarming in my opinion because India is still a lower middle income nation. [PART 1]
2
@reach2prasanna I'm not a fan of Modi (I think aggravating minorities does not help in development, there are more important things imo to do than to engage in present-day nationalistic views which is really just water under the bridge). Leaders must look at the future and understand that everybody has a role in developing a country, by alienating a portion of your population you prevent sound and robust development because you are opening up potential wounds that can destroy your plans and your momentum [PART 3]
2
@reach2prasanna However, I think Modi is hardline and I think if he focuses solely on development (really empowers his belief in making India a developed country within 25 years), then it can be possible but India only has 25 years left. By the middle of the century, it will be losing steam with its growing elderly population and declining fertility. [PART 4]
2
@riorio745 Yes I agree, prosperity brings democracy. Democracy works best in developed nations in my opinion.
2
@wuhuhu1390 Sorry but who's saying the dictatorship in Korea was a good thing? Nobody is but the fact is that economic reforms were enforced under Park's rule and that laid the foundation.
2
@Andy-P Yep, Kishore Mahbubani is a prominent Singaporean-Indian representative of China's pro-Asian and pro-China rhetoric. His career began in Singapore when Lee Kuan Yew practiced the ideology of Asian Values and his worldview is completely shaped by that Asiacentric, anti-West worldview that 1990s Asian leaders and modern CCP-led China profess. I would say Kishore Mahbubani is the most prominent non-ethnic Chinese Asian figure to have a worldview that aligns very closely with China's. It is why, while respected, his views are questioned in the West and among Western-leaning Asian people.
2
I agree that India's development is impended by democracy and it's not just India, it's all developing nations (especially Asian ones because I am most familiar with Asian cultures). The truth of the matter is India is not a Western country and just like what the think pieces of the China's Global Times say and its avid reader's who post comments, India is a traditional country controlled by typical Eastern mentality. By believing modernisation comes with Westernisation, India will never develop. Only one Asian country was able to Westernise and develop at the same time, that is Japan but that happened at a very different time period. The rise of the Asian Tigers and China show that traditional modes of Asian development is how Asian countries must develop. It is no surprise that the Southeast Asian nations of Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines as well as the South Asian nation of Bangladesh have adopted the Asian Tiger/East Asian (China+Japan) economic model. India was once on the right path when it engaged in manufacturing in the 1990s but its decades of closed economic borders, socialist policies and now a desire to align with the West has prevented the country from reaching its full potential.
1
@reach2prasanna So India's window of opportunity is closing, with less children being born and that means less economic development and more pressure on the system to aid those older people who will retire. There needs to be people on the younger end that can support the growing elderly population. [PART 2]
1
@reach2prasanna This is why Modi must unite the entire Indian population and pursue rapid development, by proving he his worthy he can be re-elected by people of all types (including minorites like Muslims). Maybe I'm too optimistic and I do not like Modi at all but I feel like he's the only one in India tm that can do anything. I don't think Rahul Gandhi or whoever is going to contest will be suitable for a developing India. You need someone hardline in my opinion but India does not have many options, it has to make do with what it has before the window closes. [PART 5]
1
@reach2prasanna I must also say that India really needs to work with China in a better way. Every once in a while we see comments made by Chinese or Indian officials about how China and India must work together to realise the Asian Century and extend hands of support but they're only gestures. I think India is the one who is reluctant in accepting Chinese cooperation and I truly believe that a multi-polar Asia-Pacific is the only way tis region is going to survive. That means the Indians must work with China and somehow and urgently reinstate the status quo in regards to their disputes. It's not an easy thing to do but I hope it happens. I hope there are more people like you in India, you have the right ideas and forward thinking mindset that is needed in a country like India. [PART 6]
1
@wuhuhu1390 It's most definitely democracy in my opinion. South Korea began its process of economic modernisation under a military dictatorship. India is so far behind because of democracy. One can't speak of unity and culture when India is such an ethnically diverse country. As a democactic nation, those in the majority will vote for those who they view benefit them. Why is it that it's always northern Indians who vote for BJP and other Hindu nationalist figures whereas the southern states are not supportive of BJP? Majority rules. They are so incredibly far behind first because of socialist policies of the past and now because of democracy and their failure to open up their country. They can't move forward because of democracy. There is a reason why some states and territories in that country are more advanced than others. Culture would play a role in why some of those most advanced states are more advanced but it's also because they vote in leaders that benefit their states and territories.
1
@wuhuhu1390 Park Chung-hee, dictator of South Korea, initiated economic reforms in the 1960s which led to the Miracle of the Han River in the 1960s and 1970s, giving South Korea one of the fastest growing economic growth rates in the world at the time and making it in Asian Tiger. Chaebols (family-run conglomerates like Hyundai, Samsung) were also established under his rule and played a huge role in pushing South Korea into developed status.
1
@wuhuhu1390 South Korea was already a fully developed country by 2000. It, along with Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong experienced rapid growth during the 1960s-1990s and were collectively known as Asian Tigers. Their economic growth rates became a model for other Asian nations, specifically those in Southeast Asia from the 1990s-present and Bangladesh from the 2010s-present.
1
@wuhuhu1390 Sorry but you're not understanding my point. A dictatorship in South Korea ushered in the Miracle on the Han River. I'm not talking about developed status, I'm talking about the road to getting to developed status. South Korea as an Asian Tiger economy that emerged in the 1960s under a dictatorship. India is struggling to move forward rapidly in comparison to China and Asian Tigers because it is a democratic nation.
1
@wuhuhu1390 India's leaders come and go every 4 years, maybe some will last two terms but there is no concept of honouring in a democracy of a developing country. The new leader will undo everything the previous leader did because they have their own vision of development. That is not something that happens in an autocratic nation.
1
@wuhuhu1390 India is developed at such a slow pace because it stops and re-starts every time a new leader comes to power.
1
@wuhuhu1390 You didn't prove a single thing, instead you rambled on and on and on and on thinking you were making points... but you weren't. I'm done with this useless conversation. I only deal with facts.
1
@owo4470 Thank you for explaining that
1
@grouchypatch9185 The same in every way possible
1
because Trump's usage of "Indo-Pacific" became mainstream and now Asian leaders use the term too. Before Trump, we called Indo-Pacific, Asia-Pacific but doesn't matter, it's the same thing.
1