Now, First you haven't provided me any thing whatsoever beyond the cold-war era textbooks definition of democracy! Now to get back to you: First you haven't provided any basis of correlation between Lee Kuan Yew and King Gyanendra. I don't know what correlation you are looking for. I mean both came at different contexts, in different places and in different times. You are forcing me to compare apple and oranges here. However, since that you have forced me to, here's what I feel- correleation or whatever, you decide: Both Lee and Gyanendra came to power at the most difficult times in history. Lee didn't want to break from the Malay federation, but the Malay Federation didn't want Singapore.. So he reluctantly had to agree to the idea of Singaporean independence. We can say the same thing about the King. He wasn't crowned at happiest of the times. It was a difficult time for the nation and for him too. Pretext to Lee's Success (if you insist) - Was a strong leader, didn't tolerate any dissent. Even today, no newspaper that wishes to sell itself in Singapore can carry any offensive materials on him. He sues them, makes them apologize and if that doesn't work, he restricts their circulations. - Because of his strong-ness, he could implement policies that no democratic leader would have even imagined to implement, such as evicting people from their "ghettos" and forcing them to live in a governmnet housing project. Many Malays, Chinese and Tamils didn't want to move out from their community and live with the others, but Lee forcefully made them live with each other. - According to Lee: "Liberal democracy needs economic development, literacy, a growing middle class and political institutionsthat support free speech and human rights. It needs a civic society resting on shared values that make people with different conflicting views willing to cooperate with each other? . and he still believes that Singapore is not ready for a full-liberal democracy as in the West. He has his reasons, and he is now, along with his UN advisor (now the dean of Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore, Kishore Mahubani) are promoting, what Huntington calls, Confucian ethics for East Asian Society. Both reject the idea of "implementing" the Western style system will somehow make the situation better in Asia. They want to fuse it with the Asian traditions, such as filial piety, family-community bonding and so on and needless to say, the idea of state being at the top. And you got Pinochet's name in the wrong place: Chile under Pinochet's regime embarked on liberal economic reforms and it somehow led to rule of law, creating institutions that were necessary to sutain democracy after Pincohet. And today, Chile is, if not the only one, then one of the most successful FUNCTIONING democracies in Latin America. The same can be said about Suharto. Suharto did lead the nation to prosperity in the 60s, 70 and even 80s. Of course his was a curropt regime, but he did suppress the fundamentalists and the communists and gave the nation the stability it needed. Assad also cannot be compared with Idi Amin or Charles Taylor. He played by what Thomas Friedman labels, "Hama Rules"- its teh Boyedin tradition, either you go kill or you get killed. Nonethless in his regime, Syria became strong. He ruled with a strong fist and managed to promote the Syrian interests abroad (in teh case of lebanon. We can contest the morality of this but he did what he felt was necessary to protect Syria and its interests- no saints in international relations!). he was a dictator, no question but what would have happened if he was not the President of Syria then? Syria would have been screwed more@ "Lee opted the policy of neutrality and non-allignment. (I have put this one just to ask you to take note of how Gyanendra explicitly rejected Taiwan's existence) " Nepal doens't have much choice in its foreign policy. And if you look at it: Lee was close to Chinese leaders too, because of his ethnic Chinese (fukkien) background. DEng Xiaoping stopped in Singapore Airport quite a few times in his trips abroad and liked Lee immensely, and Lee was a big fan of Deng. Lee could balance Singapore's policy because of his own background and personal rapport with the Chinese leaders, and had more leeway in conducting his policies than we have. And the Singaporean army was being trained in taiwan and australia. (i don't know if its still the case today) and the Chinese leaders didn't care about tihs. On Taiwan: Historically speaking, Taiwan is a part of China, which China lost to Japan in the 1894-1895 war. From 1895 to 1945, it was under the Japanese colonial rule. So when japan lost the war and surrendered, the soveirgnty of Taiwan returned to China. Otherwise, how on earth could Chiang Kai Shek would have flown to Taiwan and established the Republic of China there, if it wasn't the part of the Chinese mainland? Alright, I have answered your questions and you have answered mine. It was nice discussing with you. Time permitting, will be discussing with you on other issues too. But for now, you made your points clear, I made mine clear (hopefully), and no need to continue further with any of this. Have a good day!