• The PAP (People Action Party)'s dominance of Singaporean politics stems from its successful elimination of Barisan Socialis opposition in the 1960s and thereafter. IMO insofar as LKY acted as a dictator in that decade it's hard to separate out from the sociopolitical context - the Communist underground was non-existent, but racial and cross-border tensions were potentially destabilizing, e.g. Malaysia imposed a period of martial law around 1970 following racial riots as well.

• Political opposition does exist in Singapore - if you look at election results post-1980, there is an increasing percentage of pro-opposition voting and those parties are legitimate opponents - they're just fragmented and ineffectual. Certainly there was more diversity in the early years of Singaporean politics before LKY came to dominate, but the decline of those other parties is as much due to their weaknesses as to the PAP's strength. Although it's worth looking at LKY's re-positioning of the PAP away from its socialist roots.

• 'Dictatorship' is a controversial term to describe his rule, IMO - authoritarian rule is a more common term. Chua Beng Huat wrote about communitarianism in Singapore; its widespread acceptance demonstrates the hegemony of PAP ideology that is reinforced and supported from the ground-up and not just imposed by fiat.

(edit: Turnbull and Albert Lau are my main references for Singapore history, but historical scholarship on post-independence opposition politics is thinner, partly because of censorship/ classification of documents.)

The best book about the political system that Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP established in Singapore is Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation, by the journalist and scholar Cherian George. This book describes a rather clever system of carrots and sticks that combine to keep political opposition within careful limits. The sticks, such as libel lawsuits for opposition politicians who step too far out of line, are frequently brought up by the Western press when discussing Singapore; the carrots, which include an efficient HR system for co-opting elites by bringing them into government, are much less well known outside Singapore. (Incidentally, George himself is a poster boy for both treatments, but that's for another time.)

Lee Kuan Yew is someone that I have been interested in for quite a while now, so hopefully I can give you a good answer.

Firstly, Lee most definitely did preside over a one-party state. Yes, the PAP was elected into government every time since 1965. However, electoral boundaries were gerrymandered in order to provide the PAP with the most number of seats. Additionally, the use of GRCs, Group Representation Constituency, meant that more members would be elected per GRC. The only time the PAP lost a GRC was in the 2011 election when it lost Aljunied GRC to the Worker's Party (who I used to support until I heard their leader, Low Thia Khiang, speak in parliament). Singaporean politics is thus engineered to always produce at the very least a PAP supermajority in Parliament.

He also used libel suits in order to remove political opponents. For example, he forced J. B. Jeyaretnam into bankruptcy, resulting in the loss of his seat in parliament. This is only one case where he used what perhaps is a biased judiciary in his favour in order to silence political opponents.

Despite stepping down from the post of Prime Minister in 1990, he remained as Senior Minister until 2004 when he became Minister Mentor. His son also became the leader of the PAP. One could argue that Lee still managed to play a huge role in Singaporean politics in the background.

The Singaporean government also took perhaps excessive control over its citizens' personal lives. In the 60s, the government administered haircuts to long-haired men in an attempt to suppress the hippie subculture. The city's drug laws are notable draconian as are most of its other laws.

So we can thus see that Lee displayed many characteristics of dictatorial rule. Singapore was, under his rule, not democratic, it routinely suppressed dissent and he continued to pull the strings despite holding no office that allowed him to do so.

However, the reason why he is benevolent is because he essentially created modern Singapore or, at least, presided over that period. From an aging colonial port, Singapore became the modern city that it is directly because of Lee Kuan Yew's rule. This is the facet that most people are familiar with.

He also can be credited with creating the harmonious society despite the multiple races living in the country. Rather than devolving into race riots like neighbouring Malaysia, Lee allowed each race to take part in civic and economic life equally.

Lee also allowed Singapore to punch well above its weight in the international sphere with many other nations, such as the UAE, using Singapore as a blueprint for future development.

This is ignoring his advancements in the nation's education, infrastructure, etc. My favourite idea was the CPF, or Central Provident Fund. Simply put, each citizen puts a percentage of his income, on top of taxes, into a fund that will then be allowed to fund his housing, healthcare and pension. This, I feel, is an ingenious way of providing for your citizens without actually spending any more government money. The CPF, however, has come under attack, and now there may need to be changes to it in order to support rising living costs.

So, Lee can be called a benevolent dictator. Though his party and his government behaved in authoritarian ways, he facilitated the development of modern Singapore as a highly-advanced citystate which is a remarkable achievement.

Now, one could question whether the sacrificing of freedoms in exchange for economic prosperity is worth it. From a Western perspective, it may not be. However, as someone who lived in Singapore for 11 years and someone who experienced life elsewhere, I would suggest that such a trade is worth it. Singaporeans are noted for their ability to complain about literally anything, including their government. When they spend significant amounts of time elsewhere, they often realise the many great things the government did for them. There is little corruption, the streets are impeccably clean, the trains run on time, there is little traffic, wages are high, they have access to some of the best education in the world . . .

From experiencing Singapore's mode of government, I personally feel that such a state is highly effective and I would advocate developing nations to seriously look at Singapore's model. Hell, even a modern Western nation may have something to learn from him.

May I piggyback on this thread and ask for some recommendations on the literature surrounding LKY and his rule?