Let's define "police state" then instead of dancing around what it means then.
To me, quite a few qualities, but the most important is all that matter to me, e.g. multiple political parties, the official number of law enforcement is too low to the general population (~10k enforcers to ~6m gen.pop. in Singapore) and technology has not progressed to a level that would lead me to believe numbers don't matter.
From this definition, you might be (un)surprised to see that there are no countries that fall under "police state" to me. That is genuinely my belief. Governments are too weak to exert that much control such that they cannot be overwhelmed by just 10% of the population from wreaking havoc any singular random day.
"Police state bad" just does not mean a whole lot to me. Nor does "liberal democracy", its empty and more indicative of the person making the statement than anything.
With its Internal Security Act, the Singapore government can arrest and detain anyone it deems as a threat, even before any crime was committed. It can ban any political parties, other organizations, ban publications it deems as "subversive" or shut down entertainment venues with the same law.
The more recent Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act allows the government, on the order of its minister, to shut down any publication or online content it deems as "fake news". Or ban the website hosting the content entirely if need be.
A police state is one in which the executive uses the police and other instruments of the state (from the bureaucracy, judiciary and other agencies and tools at its disposal, including a Stasi/secret police) to monitor and control civil and political activities of its citizens and others on its territory and even beyond.
To me the mere existence of a secret police means it's a police state, like east Germany, but I understand it isn't enough for others. I hope with this I've convinced you.
I'm not saying 'this is bad', I'm saying 'this exist'.
> government can arrest and detain anyone it deems as a threat, even before any crime was committed. It can ban any political parties, other organizations, ban publications it deems as "subversive" or shut down entertainment venues with the same law
I would say without the words before "government" being there, you would have been describing quite a few countries in the world.
Detainment, is as defined by the countries that have it, but specifically using US, a temporarily hold on an individual from travel to investigate from reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed, e.g. you can be an unlucky individual who matches a description of a person that has committed a crime and you would be legally detained, up to 48 hours or evidence is produced. I believe this is consistent with even with the definition of detainment in every state in the EU as well, I won't go personally check for the truth in that statement but detainment is specifically a thing I am almost very positively sure in saying that everyone disambiguate from arrest.
> The more recent Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act allows the government, on the order of its minister, to shut down any publication or online content it deems as "fake news". Or ban the website hosting the content entirely if need be.
Also, see above list, these are legal declarations with backing + enforcement for decades.
> A police state is one in which the executive uses the police and other instruments of the state (from the bureaucracy, judiciary and other agencies and tools at its disposal, including a Stasi/secret police) to monitor and control civil and political activities of its citizens and others on its territory and even beyond.
Fully consistent with my definition as well, but its too weak of a definition, else we would have to reclassify many things as "police states", including our most favorite "liberal democracies". When its a comparison to, then people cannot cite "police state" as an opposition to my first comment and why I won't accept that as something resembling an "address".
> its too weak of a definition, else we would have to reclassify many things as "police states", including our most favorite "liberal democracies".
No, if the shoe fit...
Basically the US have a bureaucracy and part of its judiciary system that prevents it from matching 100% that definition, but it's a really close thing, and i think that calling it "mostly police state" or "half police state" is fair (and by the way, France, my country, is the same way, with exactly the same defense except the bureaucracy is a bit stronger thanks to internal unions, and the legislative branch a lot weaker than i thought it was 5 years ago).
Singapour match 100% of that definition, there is no branch of the government that work against the state in civil right cases.
To me, quite a few qualities, but the most important is all that matter to me, e.g. multiple political parties, the official number of law enforcement is too low to the general population (~10k enforcers to ~6m gen.pop. in Singapore) and technology has not progressed to a level that would lead me to believe numbers don't matter.
From this definition, you might be (un)surprised to see that there are no countries that fall under "police state" to me. That is genuinely my belief. Governments are too weak to exert that much control such that they cannot be overwhelmed by just 10% of the population from wreaking havoc any singular random day.
"Police state bad" just does not mean a whole lot to me. Nor does "liberal democracy", its empty and more indicative of the person making the statement than anything.