There's a great deal of misinformation and wrong-headed insinuation in this comment.

>People love to talk about how bad Duerte is in the Philippines (he is), but in Singapore, 18oz of marijuana gets you a mandatory death penalty

There's a great deal of difference between endorsing extra-legal killings (Duerte) and having laws with extremely harsh punishment (Singapore). The reason for Singapore's harsh drug laws is that, at least up to 1-2 decades ago, it was a major transport/business hub in the region of significant drug trafficking. The overtly harsh policy was meant to fend off any chance of Singapore becoming any sort of drug trafficking hub.

>Singapore is a 1 party system that has been controlled by the same family (the lee family) since what, the 1920s?

Lee Kuan Yew took office as Prime Minister in 1959. Also, this notion that the country has been "controlled" by the same family also needs to be put into context - Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong have been two out of the three Prime Ministers in Singapore's short history as a nation. Many members of the extended Lee family hold prominent positions in the private sector and government-linked corporations. So does the family hold a lot of influence? Highly likely. But is it "controlled" by the family? I'd like to see more evidence of that.

>there is a $700 fine if you happen to spit it on the street
Which is akin to a littering fine.

>They very much censor media / free speech. If they didn't, this article wouldn't be news.
Do they, though? There are 4 broad classes of "censorship" you could talk about:

1) Yes, there are strong laws against inflammatory statements relating to race and religion. These are significant, do curtail freedom of speech, and should be challenged or at least debated. Unfortunately, Amos Yee ran afoul of this. This is the only reason he's in trouble.

2) There is a requirement for websites having viewership above 50,000 a month to register as a "news organization"[1]. I personally strongly disagree with this, but also this has to date never been used to curtail speech. (Note: I'm not a fan of the "but this law/policy hasn't been abused yet" as a defense for a bad law/policy. I'm just stating the fact that it hasn't.)

3) Outright incitation of violence. I'm not sure how this varies across different countries/states, but I don't think this uniquely Singaporean.

4) Libel/Slander. These laws are standard. Yes, the Lee family has gone after opposition members who make factually false attacks.

But nested in the claim that "free speech is censored" is the insinuation that people cannot criticize government officials and policy. There is almost nothing further from the truth. In fact, Singaporeans are regularly self-deprecating how much they complain and rag on the government for bad policies. There is nearly no curtailment of the freedom to criticize, attack or badmouth policy, government or government officials (up to libel and slander).

There is also no illusion about the biases of media Singaporeans consume. Everybody in Singapore grows up knowing that the major news outlets have a pro-government bias, being closely linked to people in government. Everybody in Singapore grows up hearing the cliche that the history lessons are "government propaganda".

Singaporeans are among the most internet-savvy country-population in the world[2][3]. The Internet in Singapore, barring a laughable "symbolic list of 100 websites blocked"[3] is unfiltered. People who want to find alternative views, who want to organize against policy, can.

>Littering or any petty theft can result in a caning, which depending on the severity, is split up over two days. This is to keep the punished from bleeding to death (seriously).
Littering only results in fines. Vandalism can and has resulted in caning. No doubt, caning (especially in the prison form) is harsh, antiquated corporal punishment. But harsh is different from unjust.

>Only the government elite can afford to drive vehicles. This is due to the taxes and registrations for even a 20 year old car being around 100,000 local currency. They force the public to use transit.

The first statement is so blatantly false I'm not going to bother refuting it. Cars are expensive and are a middle/middle-upper-class good. Singapore has a system whereby ownership of a car requires a license that costs up to tens of thousands of US dollars. This sounds over-the-top - but is also the correct solution from an economists' point of view. The government wants to reduce the number of cars on the road, so it taxes car owners. The cost of the license is determined by supply and demand via a market mechanism (e.g. the price has gone down during recessions). Meanwhile, the government plows significant funds into expanding the public transport network. Of all the Singaporean policies to complain about, transport is among one of the best thought-out, unless you already have a notion that a car is something everyone should own.

>They require iris scans of every citizen and permanent resident (as of Jan 2016)
As of Jan 2017[5]. And is this really different from finger-print scans? Is this any more intrusive?

---

There are many reasons to criticize Singapore, but please stick to facts.

[1] http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/mda-rolls-out-licence-...
[2] https://data.gov.sg/dataset/mobile-penetration-rate
[3] http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/singapore/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Singapo...
[5] http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/authorities-to...