Liberal Democracy

So what does our Prime Minister meant when he said Singapore would not adopt a liberal democracy for the next 20 years? According to the Wikipedia article, the qualities of a liberal democracy are:

• A constitution that limits the authority of the government and protects many civil rights
• Universal suffrage, granting all citizens the right to vote regardless of race, gender or property ownership (See also elective rights)
• Freedom of expression, including speech, assembly and protest
• Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources
• Freedom of association
• Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law
• The right to private property and privacy
• Educated citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities
• A broadly and deeply-entrenched civil society with rule of law
• An independent judiciary, with opportunities for appeal
• A system of checks and balances between branches of government

And here is an excerpt from the farewell speech by the U.S. Ambassador Franklin L. Lavin on October 11, 2005 during the Eisenhower Fellows Dinner:

Singapore has its share of challenges as well. Singapore has flourished over the past 40 years, but is a 20th century model adequate for the 21st century? Singapore is grappling with the definitional questions of what kind of society it wants. Remaking its economy is, in a sense, the easy decision. Shaping a political system to reflect the needs and aspirations of its citizens is more difficult and more sensitive. What are the bounds of expression? What say should citizens have in their government? In this era of Weblogs and Webcams, how much sense does it make to limit political expression? Remember, we have the death of distance. There are no islands anymore. As part of Singapore’s success is its strong international links, it is surprising to find constraints on discussions here. In my view, governments will pay an increasing price for not allowing full participation of their citizens.