Poonte bro, I get your point. I agree for the East Asian development there were other factors too but those factors were effective because of the authritarian form of governmnets there. If you agree that education is the key to having a functioning democracy, then the first Korean President, Syngman Rhee showed dicatorship tendencies and was in power till the 60s. He was replaced by another authritarian leader and Korea was under martial law, authoritarian regimes till the 80s. But those authritarian regimes could do what the elected governmnets couldn't in the case of Korea such as forcing the people to attend schools and colleges, open up relations with China and Japan and forcefully carry out economic and social reforms. 2. Taiwan- Taiwan was an authritarian govt. till the 90s when the KMT relaxed control and Lee Tung Hui became the first elected ruler of Taiwan. Taiwan like Korea, because of its authritarian form of govt. could provide stability and consistency. That stability and consistency of the state is what the foreign investors look for. Of course both countries siding with the US helped them develop economically to a certain extent, but the social reforms were mainly due to the form of their governmnets. 3. Singapore- Singapore is still an authritarian state. However it ahs come a long way udner the leadership of Lee Kuan Yew and now that he is retired, his party PAP. Singapore's journey from the Third World to the First world could happen because Lee Kuan Yew did not tolerate non-sense dissent. He is one of those few leaders who has redefined the Press ethics and the concept of freedom of press by pressing all international newspapers/magazines including the Wall Street to publish apology and correction, whenever they publish any negatibve news on him. But look at what he has done to Singapore. He turned it into one of the most prosperous nation in the world. If he has beena democratic leader, Singapore today wouldn't have been different from what it was at the time of its independence, the late 60s, with a backward divided society with the ethnic Chinese, Indians and Malays fighting with each other for the control of power. It was Lee who started the housing reforms to bring the Malays and\ the Chinese and the Indians to live together by forcefully evacuating them from their respective ghettos. Do you think it would have been possible under democracy? He copuld place a ban on chewing gum, on broken or gramatically incorrect ENglish, on littering and almost everything you can imagine of. Malaysia: Malaysia followed Singapore on its development. Dr. mahathir Mohammed is not a liberal democrat. He didn't tolerate dissent but he did make his society stable and rich. Look at Malaysia now. We have to go there to work. Maybe authritarianism is not the only factor in their developmnet, but you cannot dismiss the fact that it was one of the major factors. On other issues, I understand and share your concerns. I too don't wnat to be living in a state that constrantly monitors my activities, makes me not speak my mind..but I would tolerate it for a short period of time if it is going to make the lives of those countless people who cannot speak, who are more concerned about their safety and fulfilling their family/socail obligations. . I don't wnat to have my civil liberties at these un-speaking, under-priviliged people. Look at this: How many people in Nepal can read and write? How many people really care about elections, rights and all those lofty ideals? Not many because of the situations they are in. You have freedom of press, but you have more than 60% of the p[eople who do not read. You have 70% of the people who do not have money to buy the newspapers and enjoy their rights to information or civil liberties. First give them education so taht they too can read.. then give them emans so that they can buy the newspapers... when we talk about the rights, we are talking of the elites rights. We are not talking about the common people's rights. And to be honest, if the King's system can at least initiate the process to equally distribute the rights to this and that to this underprviliged sector of the society, I would give it a 5 star rating..