There's some nuance to be added to that I think, which applying a Western lens to Singapore politics results in the loss of.

On press freedoms:

1. Singapore's press is heavily censored, I'll admit; but, I think this needs to be caveated in a few ways. First, its quite clear that censorship has little to do with political dissent and more to do with hate speech. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Singapore politics and policy, especially given the government's long-time stance on racial and religious harmony. (See Singapore's OB markers, their shift, and the calls for their narrowing vis-a-vis racial issues). Personally, there are other areas that I think deserve further narrowing of the respective OB markers for, but that's a discussion for another time. Regardless, the point is that its much more nuanced than simply saying people are afraid of criticising the government without reprisal. Unless of course, your point is that complete unfettered free speech, regardless of their truth is alright, which is the position in some countries.
2. Second, its quite well-known that the role of the media in Singapore is very different from the Western idea of the media as the fourth estate: its been stated from as early as the 1990s that the media would only function as a source of information, without the accompanying political commentary that one sees in publications such as the NYT, Fox news, the Economist, etc. This was borne out of fear that media outlets can be manipulated to push conflicting or incendiary narratives. Considering how we see how the media can be manipulated to incite division or being used for political ends in the US, I'm inclined to say that our concerns were actually proven right. See the following for examples that were stated long before media manipulation in the US became a hot topic:

https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/news/speeches/speech-by-minister-for-home-affairs-and-minister-for-law-k-shanmugam-at-the-inaugural-forum-a

From paragraph 20 onwards: https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/2006100601.htm

​

On defamation suits:

1. I think to say that the government abuses the legal system is quite uncalled for. To begin with, if someone makes false and defamatory statements about a person, or a government figure, are they to have no recourse to the courts? Defamation suits are very much a thing in most jurisdictions around the globe. I don't see why its highlighted as a problem in Singapore's case.
2. Also, to say that the legal system is abused to silence opposition members glosses over the substance and effect of the allegations. For instance, in the recent defamation case launched by the current PM, he was accused of misappropriating public pension funds. Considering the serious political implications of this allegation, is the government expected to sit there and accept it, or should they be allowed to vindicate themselves in a court of law? If its the latter, that's how you get the unchecked spread of fake news. Again, I don't think that's a very viable option considering how its been shown (again by the US) that rational discourse responding to those spreading said allegation doesn't have any effect anymore.
3. Also, Singapore doesn't even come anywhere close in the award for damages as compared to other jurisdictions. The UK, US and Australia regularly award sums from a million dollars or upwards. I think its a bit disingenuous to say that Singapore is especially harsh in defamation suits.

In general? But it doesn't even apply generally in Singapore since the President doesn't govern. So what are you talking about?

As a Singaporean, this is offensive and completely misses the point of the requirement. The point of the requirement was that the President's (de facto) real function is the management of Singapore's fiscal reserves, the drawing down of which has sort of attained a "measure of the last resort" status among the populace.

For that reason, the President requires should at least have some idea about governance, or at the very least some degree of economic or business knowledge to help them with that function.

No point debating them my guy. Most non-Singaporeans can't wrap their head around the fact that:

1. The majority can, and may actually want, to vote in a particular government repeatedly for over 60 years straight.

2. Its possible for an incumbent government to function at a level consistently enough that they retain the majority's favour

3. Asian societies can have a political dynasty like the US or Canada without it being autocratic (which lowkey reeks of western superiority tbh since its generally acceptable in the West but never in Asia)

On the 3rd point, it would be a stretch to even call it a political dynasty anymore: the PM in waiting has no connection to the Lee family and none of the candidates for the top position in government back when they were fighting it out were related to them either.

In fact, none of the descendants of the Lee family are involved in governance: one of them even had to leave Singapore to get married to his gay partner because of the laws here and I don't think he came back. That doesn't seem very dictator-like when even the members of your alleged "ruling" family have to leave.

Not saying that Singapore doesn't have its downsides (and we do have a lot): our treatment of the LGBTQ community, our drug laws, laws on civil protest, and treatment of foreign workers are outright draconic, and the list goes on. But I do agree with you that the calling us a dictatorship or autocracy just reflects a complete misunderstanding of Singapore's political landscape.