> Who's been in charge for 16 years, and who just happens to be a military general and the eldest son of the previous prime minister.
That actually weakens the claim that it's a military dictatorship. If the army is controlled by civilians, its not a military dictatorship. If a person becomes leader of the military due to civilian connections, then it's not a military dictatorship.
A military dictatorship is when a person becomes civilian leader by virtue of their military leadership. If the son of the civilian prime minister first gets to take over the army, it doesn't change the fact that he's fundamentally a civilian and the civilians are controlling - inside and out - the military. It reinforces it. He led the army and the country because of his civilian credentials.
This sounds more like rule by and for a family or a small group of elites.
>Who's been in charge for 16 years, and who just happens to be a military general
According to this logic, the United States was a military dictatorship for a good portion of its history. Presidents Washington, Jackson, W. Harrison, Taylor, Pierce, A. Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, B. Harrison, and Eisenhower were all generals. Your claim is absurd.
Not seeking to discredit the ruling party. What they've done with Singapore is nothing short of a miracle. But the fact is that they're still backed up by a ridiculously strong army, and the opposition party exists just so they can say there is one (but is frequently bullied regardless).
Singapore is classified as changing from civilian dictatorship to military dictatorship in 2004 in the source data [0] for that article because the newly elected Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was a brigadier general until 1984. So it's for purely formal reasons, not because there was a military takeover.
Note that by this measure, there can be "military democracies", such as the U.S. during 55 years (in 1946-2008) where the president was ex-military (e.g. Bush).
> Singapore is classified as changing from civilian dictatorship to military dictatorship in 2004 in the source data for that article because the newly elected Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was a brigadier general until 1984. So it's for purely formal reasons, not because there was a military takeover.
The Singapore government has been trying to move away from this — a significant part by requesting that the press address them as "Mr", instead of their military ranks. There was a time when Lee Hsien Loong was addressed as `BG (NS) Lee Hsien Loong` everywhere [1].
One of the potential heirs to the Prime Ministership is the ex-Chief of Army, Chan Chun Sing [2]. It's very rare to see either the media, or the government themselves, to address him as `MG (NS) Chan Chun Sing` in their publications.
so is France, Spain and the United Kingdom. A military dictatorship is a form of government in which the civil authority is subject to the military authority. This is not true in Singapore, the military answers to the elected government, just like in most other modern states.
