I'm Singaporean, and completely not surprised to see this appear on HN.
As with many places, the situation in my country is a bit more nuanced than a simple "the ruling party has ruled the country since 1965". Civilisation is the surrender of varying degrees of civil liberty for security and safety, and over here we definitely surrender more degrees of civil liberty for the safety and security of our streets. As another user put it, essentially a benevolent dictatorship, emphasis on the benevolent. For the most part, the ruling party has done a good job with the administration of the government. Things are fast and efficient. Is it worth the trade? It depends on your perspective. Even as a liberal, I agree that the paternalism of the government is not without its merits.
There were quite a lot of push-back on the POFMA (what the fake news law is called) among the people, though our politicians, no doubt because of their same-party membership, barely discussed anything concrete in our parliamentary debates. In the end, the law was passed because of course it would be.
>> Civilisation is the surrender of varying degrees of civil liberty for security and safety.
That's a pretty reductivist way to define civilisation...
From this definition; It sounds to me like there is a certain character/type of people who are redeemed as Civilized based on Govt definition. Thus justifies heavy control over society.
"As a liberal", wouldn't it be more favourable to design the system around liberty of choice for the individual rather than control of a central power?
It is deliberately reductive because I was hoping not to get into a debate about personal freedoms.
If you disagree, try telling the police that they have no right to infringe on your personal freedom when they stop you for drink-driving. Or theft. Or even jay-walking. To be in a society, any kind of society, involves giving up personal freedoms in exchange for something, usually safety or stability. We just have a different idea of what's an acceptable loss of personal freedom.
I agree that it'd be favourable to design the system about personal freedom, but that system comes with its own inefficiencies and disadvantages that by large my country deem unacceptable. Unfortunately, Singapore is still largely a pragmatic and conservative society that min-maxes for economic stability, and it'd be long before this changes.
>I would consider banning slavery as more civilized, but it is an expansion of civil liberties.
It's an expansion of civil liberties for one group (the enslaved), at the cost of limiting the civil liberties of another group (the former slave owners): you're preventing the slave owners from exercising their freedom to enslave people and force them to work.
>Same with having general freedom of expression. Any thug can ban "lies" he doesn't like.
Same here. Even a law that bans yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is infringing on the civil liberties of people to speak freely and cause chaos.
Personally, I'm perfectly happy with these infringements of civil liberty. It's better for society to avoid needless chaos from people shouting "fire!" and to prevent people from being enslaved. But they are limiting absolute freedom.
Singapore is the first place where I actually began to question whether democracy was the absolute way. Democracy was how I was raised. Overall, I still believe it is the way long term, but what can you do when you have a single, unified government that cares for its people is simply amazing.
Safest in the world, hands down. This can be felt in every day life. I hold tables while I get my lunch with my cell phone. I've even dared it in public "hawker centers" a number of times. My friends have had stuff stolen, but that was in the bathroom where there's no "watchful eye". My kid can run/play freely and I only worry about her running into traffic.
A about 1-2 years ago, someone was stabbed to death in the central business district. It was the biggest headline for ages - murder of passion from father-in-law. That's it... nothing else. I don't think/worry about guns - ever.
"Hawker Centers" are basically food for the people. Each meal can be had for US$2-4. I live in public housing, HDB, and while that sounds weird - 70%+ is public housing. i.e. only PR or citizens may purchase (I can rent as an expat). This keeps the price of homes at a relatively reasonable amount. US$250k - US$600k. Housing is not perfect but it is way better than stateside problems.
There are dark sides, do not get me wrong (built on the backs of migrant workers who can never gain status - is just one. Black and Chinese built US but gained status eventually... migrants can never gain status here and continue to build this country), but they're not nearly as dark as others.
Is it worth it? I say if you are willing to submit yourself, it completely is.
Any figures to back that up? It's said that nothing gets stolen in Singapore, until you speak to Singaporeans. Bikes still get stolen for instance. The city seems super clean, but mainly because low paid workers clean the city really often. If a Singaporean visits another country you'll notice that they're used to the city being cleaned often, not so much that they're behaving differently.
Your "Hawker Centers" have people in their 70s bent forward cleaning up tables to some earn money. Those centers are cheap, but why does the benevolent government not care for those people?
Further, Singapore is pretty much a city, nothing more. Being isolated from any other country helps a lot too.
I think you too easily dismiss the "dark sides".
> My kid can run/play freely and I only worry about her running into traffic.
This is the same as a lot of other countries.
IMO the biggest benefit of Singapore is being a small city on pretty much an island.
> It's said that nothing gets stolen in Singapore, until you speak to Singaporeans.
A friend of mine left her cellphone in a mall bathroom once, on the bench when she washed her hands. Went all the way home and realised she forgot it.
After ~4 hours when she reached the mall. It was still sitting where she left it.
> Your "Hawker Centers" have people in their 70s bent forward cleaning up tables to some earn money.
There is no social safety net in Singapore. So once you get old, there's no benefit or dole, or any government funded programs to give you a comfy life where tax payers pay for you. The idea is you life off your CPF. Because there are people who have no savings. The government subsidizes their salaries. If a company hires them then the government will pay a portion of the salary, this gives incentive to businesses to hire them.
You could raise taxes for businesses and individuals, but then who would move their business or come work in Singapore?
Democratic Iceland seems to be #1 mostly. Fun Iceland fact:
>It [has] the oldest surviving parliament in the world, a claim shared by Tynwald. The Althing was founded in 930 at Þingvellir ("thing fields" or "assembly fields"), situated approximately 45 kilometres (28 mi) east of what later became the country's capital, Reykjavík.
A simple Google search will show you Singapore and Tokyo are regarded as the 2 safest cities on Earth, which one is first depends on which report you read.
And Tokyo happens to be quite democratic and non-authoritarian. So an argument that people necessarily need Big Brother to behave falls flat on its face.
> So an argument that people necessarily need Big Brother to behave falls flat on its face.
Japanese culture is very different from pretty much any other culture. They respect each other and their country and environment. (except whales) They are raised from a young age to look after each other and respect each other. Something the rest of the world could learn from.
Japanese culture is largely a product of developing on an island archipelago where there's not much livable space (much of the land is mountains) and there's almost no natural resources. Add to that the various contacts with Western culture they had, and you get what they have now. The bit about respecting the environment (which isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than many other countries) is an example of this: when you don't have much space, you have to work harder at keeping your environment good because you don't have the option of just moving west when it gets too crowded, like they did in the US. Of course, they tried emulating the Europeans and doing the colonization thing a while back, and that didn't work out too well.
There are so many extreme problems with racism in Singapore, including abuse of “minor“ ethnicities in the corporate workplace. It’s benevolent for certain people, and the complete opposite for others. Slave labor is the norm in that country, for both manual labor and seemingly corporate desk work. It’s vastly underpaid, overworked, highly restrictive lifestyle if you’re not a native.
You are an expat from United States, so your experience is much much different than most people there. Westerners are immediately moved to the top of the culture stack.
The median income in Singapore is S$5400/mo, or around US$40k/year. This is a king's ransom compared to neighboring countries and that's why so many people come to Singapore to work.
There absolutely are abuses, particularly for maids and manual laborers, but many of the worst (eg advance fees that put them into debt) are explicitly illegal in Singapore, and calling white-collar expats "slave labor" is absurd hyperbole.
A skilled graphic designer working for a major international brand, even after several years with the company, will on average earn equivalent of 20k US dollars per year for 60 hour work weeks and limited health benefits, if that individual is from a neighboring company. Compare that to nearly triple the salary for a fresh grad with no experience if the individual is a native or westerner.
The ethnic bias is real and extreme, and they take advantage of the employee’s home country disadvantage when setting terms.
Is the safety and honesty embedded in the culture now? That's how Nordic countries keep things straight -- not by police force, and they're indeed some of the leanest police forces in the world. I'm basically wondering if you could change Singapore to a Nordic style democracy and keep the upsides you speak of just by the force of culture?
Singapore has lot more underlying tensions than a Nordic country: massive wealth inequality, different races with different languages and religions, a huge barely-human migrant worker underclass, etc. The ruling party uses this as an convenient excuse to justify everything they do, but there's a grain of truth to it as well.
That said, yes, I think safety and honesty are fairly embedded. Yesterday, the case of somebody trying to bribe a condo rentacop to overlook their (illegal) AirBnB guest made the news: the guard refused the $50, reported the bribery attempt to the police, and the offender was sent to jail for a week:
Exactly -- Nordic countries are among the safest, most honest places, but by culture instead of by control. I was wondering if long enough control would turn into a culture, and the dictatorian control could be eventually abolished.
Have you ever been to Switzerland? What you describe sounds like Suisse, but without all those dark aspects you mention. Open and just society that does treat people fairly. Super low criminality (compared to most world). Kids playing outside etc.
Maybe for US persons this seems like a paradise, but its not a unique place. I know where I want to raise my kids. It sure as hell ain't some artificial bubble like Singapore. Never have been there, plenty of colleagues did (or live there), cool and all but not great for actually settling there.
Most small towns in the U.S. are extremely safe. I used to live in one and I basically never locked my home or car. And people are spread out enough that you still get plenty of freedom... no particular zoning, nobody to be bothered by your noise, etc.
You can ping me if you want to find a coding job in Switzerland (iwan@coderfit.com). I am a coder turned recruiter living and working in Zurich. I am active on the local tech job market.
Thank you, I already live and work here for 10 years, otherwise I wouldn't dare to comment about stuff I have no first hand experience with. Good luck to you
The „watchful eye“ part sounds disturbing. I‘ve been to Singapore and it‘s a very impressive place.
But it‘s also very sterile imo. Sure there is awesome street food and culture in general to a degree. But i kept missing the borderline stuff there. I like to live in a place where people are allowed to make mistakes, even criminal ones in some cases, and not have their live be over Immediately. That sounds weird to some i suppose.
You like to live in a place with crime, there's plenty of places to choose from. People should also have the right to live in a place where they won't mug you or rape you.
> My kid can run/play freely and I only worry about her running into traffic.
To be fair, that is possible in a lot of countries, I would have doubts to do that in America though. And not only because of crime.
> I actually began to question whether democracy was the absolute way.
There are several democratic countries that beat Singapore in regards to safety. So I believe this to be flawed reasoning. It is a safe country, but not exceptionally so.
edit: Disregarding the fact that Singapore is officially a democracy. A benevolent dictatorship would probably look more like the Gadaffi regime. Economic success in such a dictatorship is probably mandatory.
In the US, you can have your kid run and play outside if you live in a suburb, in fact a better life for their children is what pushes many families to move to the suburbs in the first place.
you could let your kid run free & unsupervised with little worry on probably near 90+ percent of the north american landmass. i spent the vast majority of my childhood with little to no supervision and crime rates have only fallen since then.
You spent your childhood in a time before helicopter parenting became legally mandated. If you let your kid run free and unsupervised today in America, you will probably end up with a visit from CPS and/or the police, and you might get arrested. It has nothing at all to do with crime rates.
Public housing in Singapore is not equivalent to those elsewhere simply due to them being built not for the poor but for population demographic control with arbitrary ethnic quotas per building and rules preventing singles from leasing flats. 70-80% of the population lives in public housing estates which are sold with a 99year lease, you don’t even get to own your own flat.
Whether a system would stay benevolent (say, to a particular class of people, etc) depends a lot on what's good for the economy. And people under the system have a general grasp of that too. This is why you have things like countercultures.
I would say the contemporary West's emphasis on authoritarianism is probably doing more harm than good. First of all the emphasis doesn't make things better - authoritarian would continue to be authoritarian whether you put the emphasis on their authoritarian nature or not. Secondly, it's pretty much a heresy suppression situation [1] here, or a (conscious or subconscious) distraction strategy embedded in the mode of thinking if you will, both of which are ironically what authoritarianism is best at i.e. suppression and distraction. Ultimately there is some form of authoritarianism existing in every system. You just have to look deep enough. Of course, some systems enjoy more democracy and a higher degree of freedom than the others, while some enjoy more achievements in KPI. But by emphasising on a system's authoritarian nature you are painting yourself a much simpler picture about the world here as if it is authoritarian v.s. the people, when things are so much more complicated than that.
It's very unfortunate that comment like this one is getting downvotes on HN.
I cannot answer for most of the population, but I can hazard a guess — they do not care to think that far. We have our bread and ciruses, and that makes us complacent that our government will at least maintain benevolence.
Singapore's biggest challenge isn't whether its political system is "Democratic" or "Authoritarian", because such dichotomies are not terribly revealing about the peculiar situation Singapore is in geopolitically. The biggest challenge, rather, is whether it can continue to thrive in a rules based, international global trade regime.
Its a small place so it can adapt fast. In fact, many such miracle places are small, thus government is not some distant entity. If anything it is the big countries that are struggling to adapt to globalisation
> over here we definitely surrender more degrees of civil liberty for the safety and security of our streets
It seems to me that you don't have to surrender so much, but I am totally unaware of your situation. And maybe I am desensitized to the lack of safety.
I want to ask, what are the threats, and what is your exposure to them?
I’ve lived in Singapore and agree with your post but I also have an uneasy feeling that it won’t last much longer. This government have and continue to make some big (IMO) mistakes especially in the areas of planning and mobility. Hopefully this is managed better by the next government.
I agree, especially with the uneasy feeling that it wouldn't last much longer; the challenge of the first 50 years of Singapore was economical, and the heavy-handedness of the government was a result of that. The challenge of the next 50, in contrast, is cultural and about her people, and I don't think the government as it is, is capable of shifting gears.
>>I'm Singaporean, and completely not surprised to see this appear on HN....Civilisation is the surrender of varying degrees of civil liberty for security and safety
...We're just debating the word "varying" and might not agree with your conclusion.
If you disagree, try telling the police that they have no right to infringe on your personal freedom when they stop you for drink-driving. Or theft. Or even jay-walking. To be in a society, any kind of society, involves giving up personal freedoms in exchange for something, usually safety or stability. We just have a different idea of what's an acceptable loss of personal freedom.
Ideally we d be able to switch citizenships, and let the best government win us. Unfortunately its not possible, though i would like the idea of an airbnb for citizenships
> Who's been in charge for 16 years, and who just happens to be a military general and the eldest son of the previous prime minister.
That actually weakens the claim that it's a military dictatorship. If the army is controlled by civilians, its not a military dictatorship. If a person becomes leader of the military due to civilian connections, then it's not a military dictatorship.
A military dictatorship is when a person becomes civilian leader by virtue of their military leadership. If the son of the civilian prime minister first gets to take over the army, it doesn't change the fact that he's fundamentally a civilian and the civilians are controlling - inside and out - the military. It reinforces it. He led the army and the country because of his civilian credentials.
This sounds more like rule by and for a family or a small group of elites.
>Who's been in charge for 16 years, and who just happens to be a military general
According to this logic, the United States was a military dictatorship for a good portion of its history. Presidents Washington, Jackson, W. Harrison, Taylor, Pierce, A. Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, B. Harrison, and Eisenhower were all generals. Your claim is absurd.
Not seeking to discredit the ruling party. What they've done with Singapore is nothing short of a miracle. But the fact is that they're still backed up by a ridiculously strong army, and the opposition party exists just so they can say there is one (but is frequently bullied regardless).
Singapore is classified as changing from civilian dictatorship to military dictatorship in 2004 in the source data [0] for that article because the newly elected Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was a brigadier general until 1984. So it's for purely formal reasons, not because there was a military takeover.
Note that by this measure, there can be "military democracies", such as the U.S. during 55 years (in 1946-2008) where the president was ex-military (e.g. Bush).
> Singapore is classified as changing from civilian dictatorship to military dictatorship in 2004 in the source data for that article because the newly elected Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was a brigadier general until 1984. So it's for purely formal reasons, not because there was a military takeover.
The Singapore government has been trying to move away from this — a significant part by requesting that the press address them as "Mr", instead of their military ranks. There was a time when Lee Hsien Loong was addressed as `BG (NS) Lee Hsien Loong` everywhere [1].
One of the potential heirs to the Prime Ministership is the ex-Chief of Army, Chan Chun Sing [2]. It's very rare to see either the media, or the government themselves, to address him as `MG (NS) Chan Chun Sing` in their publications.
so is France, Spain and the United Kingdom. A military dictatorship is a form of government in which the civil authority is subject to the military authority. This is not true in Singapore, the military answers to the elected government, just like in most other modern states.
Singapore strikes me as another outcome of a China-like single-party state. It's somewhat authoritarian, somewhat free. It's big on national unity, but unlike China, fully acknowledges the distinct cultures there. It's a very unique place.
I have heard a China expert claim that this is the long-term goal of the Chinese Communist Party - a rich, authoritarian state with economic and (non-political) personal freedoms.
That has to be the CCP’s long-term goal: they want to stay in power, and they need to build a rich citizenry so people don’t get uppity and decide revolution is better than the status quo.
But while Singapore feels more or less like the west, China most definitely does not, and the gap grows wider year after year.
They're not giving Han Chinese all that much personal freedom now either, because in addition to this long-term goal, they're also deeply prejudiced against minorities, and care more about staying in power than about humane and smart public policy.
A friend of mine in China talked about how Alicloud is pitching blockchains to the Chinese government for some internal uses. And the interesting thing is that the Singapore gov has already launched a blockchain marketplace for renewable energy and it's not a fintech PR move but a happening phenomenon right now where I've got friends moonlighting as energy salesman. So yeah, that's definitely what's happening now - a rich, authoritarian state with economic freedom in the making. Every year there are a number of selected Chinese officials that would visit Singapore as exchange students to study about city planning and the art of governance.
Even this comment got fluctuated between upvotes and downvotes. Intriguing what the karma inflation does now. I've noticed the downvote behaviour is context-sensitive i.e. in regards to the article's content and the general sentiment around the reception.
Somehow you've mistaken a statement about the complaince of Americans due to the level of comfort we have, with the actual legal structure and rights available in two countries.
Additionally, I don't hate America but readily admit we have our faults.
Your statement about my travels, is equally inaccurate.
Any time Americans complain about the government, it's "freedom of the press". Given how much we are sick of Twitter nonsense, it seems the freedom is well established and heavily used.
> That country is an authoritarian nanny state disguised as Disney Land.
This was my observation about Monaco too.
If people were poor and fighting for opportunities in that hamlet they would call it authoritarian. But since it isn't and is free from adversity it is viewed favorably (and the poor people can live across the street in France). Just a fascinating look into relative morality, or masquerading disdain of certain forms of government as a moral issue while ignoring others, as opposed to just the authoritarian nature of a particular government.
> Nobody cares about freedom of the press because they are well paid and comfortable
that's because freedom of press and similar rights are a uniquely western phenomenon that are --- despite what droves of its proponents will tell you --- derived from christian values that didn't and don't exist anywhere else.
Many in the broader region don't care about freedom of press, while also being poorly paid and uncomfortable. No placation of masses needed.
> freedom of press and similar rights are a uniquely western phenomenon that are ... derived from christian values
This is incorrect. Europe is quite unique in that since the advent of Christianity there has always existed a church separate from the state acting as a counterbalance thereto, and offering an alternative foundation of moral authority. Despite this, brutal suppression of all dissent and criticism of the political structure was almost always supported by the Church, which generally allied itself with dominant regimes (i.e. feudal rulers).
It wasn't until the flurry of neoclassicist-inspired philosophising of the Enlightenment and the emergence of monied elites in a position to pressure the state to grant them rights that said rights were slowly granted. They often couched their arguments in terms of Christian doctrine, but this is just the incidental result of the dominance of the Christian religion in society at that time.
To be fair that was the Roman Catholic church, which also procecuted the former Christian communities all over Europe. It is mostly this consolidated form that supported suppression.
> They often couched their arguments in terms of Christian doctrine, but this is just the incidental result of the dominance of the Christian religion in society at that time.
I wouldn't say that it's entirely incidental. Christianity is compatible with individualism in a way that some other religions are not.
This is not quite correct. Christian values would be a strict theocracy with no freedom of the press.
Liberal values descend from a robust view of agency, eg humanism which is more or less incompatible with strict interpretations of Christianity. Compatible with deism though.
No, I'm quoting directly from several hundred if not thousands of years of Jewish teachings which make up over half the bible. Christ mentioned very little on political structures, he certainly didn't vouch for democracy.
Most likely because Singapore is not also putting huge amount of people in detention camps and harvesting their organs.
Maybe if they had the scale to do so they would, but that's not really the question when it comes to public opinion.
Genuine question: is there any proof for organ harvesting of Uighurs yet? A quick Google search on "Uyghur organ harvesting" leads to me tabloid sources and calls for investigations.
Uighurs are Turkic people who are genetically different from ethnic Chinese. Transplant recipients must have similar genes in their immune systems to those of the donor. Otherwise, the body will reject the organ. This is also why blacks have a harder time finding organ donors: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2013/01/21/blacks...
The articles do not offer much in the way of evidences. This is understandable since the authoritarian nature of China makes it hard to gather any evidence in the first place. I remain skeptical over the fact that Uighurs (Caucasians) and ethnic Chinese (East Asians) are genetically different and the recipient's body is very likely to reject the organ.
> Most likely because Singapore is not also putting huge amount of people in detention camps and harvesting their organs.
To be fair, the chinese call it de-radicalization/re-education centers, which they set up after a few extremist separatist attacks which killed hundreds of people. And as for the organs, much of the west ( especially in europe ) take people's organs without their explicit consent (it's called opt-out organ "donation".
> Maybe if they had the scale to do so they would, but that's not really the question when it comes to public opinion.
Nonsense. It's called political expediency and the trade war. A decade ago, when china was our "friend", we were talking about "chimerica" and praising their handling of muslim extremists in xinjiang and china's help with our war on "muslim terrorists". A decade later and we are in the midst of a trade war and the propaganda changes.
> And as for the organs, much of the west ( especially in europe ) take people's organs without their explicit consent (it's called opt-out organ "donation".
I feel like equating the forcible harvesting of organs to opt out organ donation is extremely disingenuous.
I have a feeling that "forcible havesting of organs" is just propaganda. I remember hearing about "forcible harvesting of organs" of the falun gong 20 years ago when the west and china were going through a difficult period of china's ascension to the WTO. And once the "difficulties" were overcome, nothing about falun gong and the "organ harvesting".
I also remember the propaganda about iraqi soldiers killing babies in hospitals which turned out to be a manufactured lie.
I'm sure the chinese government does a lot of bad things, like every major government, but the 24/7 ridiculous "news" we are getting now, is just propaganda.
I'm not a psychic, but I predicted the following when the trade war began.
1. "organ harvesting" ( to be fair I mistakenly assumed it would be tied to tibetans or the falun gong )
2. hong kong protest ( just like during the pivot to asia 5 years ago )
3. "chinese spies" or "politicians" magically defecting with outlandish stories
4. "international" awards ( nobel peace, think tank awards, whatever ) being awarded to politically expedient people
And if things really escalate, then I'll make another prediction - yellow peril style propaganda. And of course, the chinese will also escalate their propaganda.
The worrying part is the American public keeps falling for the same tricks: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, Syria has chemical weapons, Gaddafi's soldiers supposedly issued viagra for raping women, voting Bush for second term, etc.
I have no doubt these countries have done horrible things, but they do not deserve to be invaded and subjected to millions of civilian deaths.
Most Chinese Muslims are not Uyghur. The Chinese government doesn't care about its citizens being Muslim per se. The issues are actually quite different - separatism and a string terrorist attacks that caused a government crackdown.
I don't know exactly what it's based on. It could be based on what websites people visit, or whether they attend mosques the government considers to be radical. The reporting on the issue leaves much to be desired.
You're on your own on that one. Religious discrimination is just as bad. And even if you disagree, plenty of basically ethnic has been justified by superfluous religious differences.
I agree on both counts, but the reality is that in China, politically agitating for separatism is going to get you in very serious trouble.
I find that in Western reporting, the actual issues involved in Xinjiang are not discussed at all. Instead, it's presented as if the Chinese government had a problem with Muslims. The entire issue of separatism is rarely mentioned, nor is the fact that the largest Muslim group in China is actually the Hui (rather than the Uyghurs). The media is not really trying to inform the public about the situation and underlying conflicts (e.g., the East Turkestan movement), and instead painting a vastly dumbed-down, cartoonish picture that serves other propaganda interests.
"All Hui-run nursery schools, child care centers and religious schools were forcibly closed in Ningxia and across Yunnan and Henan provinces, which are also home to a large number of Hui Muslims."
"Imams in Henan and Ningxia must now attend monthly training sessions that can last for days. There, imams told NPR, they are taught Communist ideology and state ethnic policy and discuss Xi Jinping's speeches. Imams must then pass an exam testing their ideological knowledge in order to renew their license each year, mirroring how the government issues licenses to imams in the Xinjiang region."
The PRC's pressure on Muslims is hardly limited to Uyghurs. Please consider this recent NPR report ("'Afraid We Will Become The Next Xinjiang': China's Hui Muslims Face Crackdown") in Gansu and Henan: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/763356996/afraid-we-will-beco...
I've lived in Singapore for more than half of my life and met expats there from all walks of life. And I would tell you Singapore is very well integrated with western values, both in terms of the cultures and the social-political aspects of many things (other than weed and cocaine, etc; but you can certainly get your hand on some lsd if you know the right contacts). Anyway the point is that Singapore is very westernised and very, very clean in the conservative way - it's like a little Sydney without all the underground and neo-liberalism - and that's why the west love it (i.e. in general, especially the Rights - I've not known a self-declared Left that could stand staying in Singapore for more than a week). There is just a tremendous amount of logistics transactions happening everyday there.
I've just moved back to China now and I would have to say that China does the opposite of embracing western values. They go with, well, "the Chinese way". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21602206
> And I would tell you Singapore is very well integrated with western values
[..]
> I've not known a self-declared Left that could stand staying in Singapore for more than a week
Weird combination of statements. It gives the impression (though you probably mean something different that anyone not liking it is 1) "left" 2) not part of Western values
Left vs right is pretty useless distinction anyway. Someone who is considered "left" in US is IMO very much "right" in Netherlands. Plus some parties on the right or left differ greatly on how they see things. E.g. not every "left" party will align with what someone agrees with; else there wouldn't be multiple parties. Those parties differ more greatly than "a little bit left" vs "a lot left" (with some exceptions).
Further, I reject the notion that someone who is left wouldn't be able to stand staying in Singapore for more than a week. Though biggest problem is that after a week there's not much to do (for anyone reading along, all the Singaporean colleagues completely agree with me on this!) :-P
Yeah I guess I had mistakenly used left vs right as a synonym for the more liberal-ish vs the more conservative-ish and that is indeed probably an oversimplification.
Anyway I was talking more about the "liveable" aspects of Singapore. Maybe not a week as a tourist but say living longer than a month there. The night life is pretty boring, the underground scene had dissipated in the 2000s and the art scene is not at all vibrant (though things are gradually improving). I would say it doesn't enjoy lots of things liberal-ish cities (like Berlin, NY, etc) enjoy. But there is stability and comfort. It's just that people that is more liberal-ish would ultimately leave the country and live overseas, or if circumstances allow they would start an NGO or something and try to improve things to have more freedom of expressions, more social acceptance for LGBT, etc. But ultimately it is a very conservative place with things like homophobia and an embedded racism. And that's the point I'm trying to make.
+1 to the “nothing to do after a week” - it does get quite dull very fast. At least the food is amazing. Changi airport was my favorite part of Singapore for the weekend getaways
Dude. You jumped the shark too early there. (People behaving like you is the exact reason why HN is becoming more like reddit nowadays.)
You can read my comment in response to bkor's. In no way I was trying to glorify Singapore or the authoritarian nature of things.
I actually left Singapore and moved back to China because there are more acceptance and appreciation for liberalism in China than Singapore. And more grey areas to navigate around too. And I'm one of those people that believe in making a difference in China. Making a difference in Singapore is much harder and requires more resources.
I have a few friends that tried to run some form of NGO in Singapore. One of them did a project called Make It Share It (https://www.facebook.com/makeitshareit2017/) to promote art and freedom of expression. The Project closed down a year plus later due to lack of funding because it was entirely self-funded and they didn't give too much thoughts on the self-sustainability part. I would say it did manage to bring some positive impact to the society a lil but in a very limited way. Afterwards the founders left Singapore and now they got settled down in Berlin.
why the down votes - karma inflation. Too many people have received enough karma to downvote nowadays, especially people that jump the shark too early.
I love how this comment received a few upvotes in the beginning and there came the downvotes. HN as I've known it have certainly changed to be more reddit-like now.
You statement seems like whataboutism, a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit someone else by making an false accusation of hypocrisy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
In truth a common Western position is that China and Singapore are not equivalent because despite its problems, Singapore still commits fewer human rights violations than China. This position is based on extensive research and observation by multiple NGOs which rank countries by the severity of their human rights violations, as a starter point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
I note from your HN profile that you have a number of professional connections to China. Perhaps it is in your personal interest to support the Chinese state?
Given the other details of your background, it looks like you've probably benefited from living under regimes with much better human rights records than China's. I would encourage you to have compassion for people who are not born with the right to free expression, the right to practice their own religion, etc. and to recognize that China and Singapore are by no means the same.
You completely misinterpreted my small single sentence and misread my background too. I don't intend to discredit Singapore. AT ALL. I have high respect for Singapore as a nation and some of my best friends live there. I lived there for three years, founded a startup there. My "professional connections" to China are absolutely tiny in comparison and have nothing to do with my statement.
Not everyone has political motives! I am also not picking sides for or against anyone, unlike what you seem to want to do and what you are trying to paint me as doing. The world isn't black or white.
Your response is long on explanations of what a nice guy you are and how much you love Singapore, where your close business partners reside.
All that however is immaterial to the observation that you've committed the fallacy of whataboutism, seemingly to discredit critics of China's human rights violations, which you've labeled as political - please consider that for many people the right to not have their organs harvested or be force fed pork is more than just politics.
Respectfully I think this is a poor look for a business leader and graduate of America's elite universities. Or for anyone.
My prediction is that Facebook is going to resort to "this content is banned in your country" route.
Only way to access this would be through VPN... if everybody in the country uses VPN, they govt would probably start copying the Great firewall of China.
The internet "censorship" in SG has been around for a long time, and it hasn't really changed. It's a symbolic block that ISPs sometimes forget to even implement.
Is there a factsheet or written definition for what actually constitutes 'Fake News' or is it "news I don't agree with?"
There were perfectly reasonable legal words available to describe fraudulent, false or factually inaccurate statements, it's sad that 'Fake News' has caught on so well as though it is a meaningful term.
> Is there a factsheet or written definition for what actually constitutes 'Fake News' or is it "news I don't agree with?"
The law [1] is broadly worded, and ministers can issue correction orders (which must be complied with immediately) for anything. The affected parties are required to then spend time and money to go through the court system to dispute the order.
Malaysia, where Malay is the official language but much of the legal system still runs in English, passed a law that was in fact entitled the "Anti-Fake News Act 2018" and very much uses "fake news" as a legal term.
I have a lateral question about Singapore. Everything I have read about the country says that it is one of the best in the world for business and, in particular, startups. Yet some of the commentary here leads me to believe there's a dark side to the reality of this nation.
Anyone with first hand knowledge care to comment on this?
I am puzzled because it so happens we might have to do some business in Singapore and a friend was telling me about the business/startup environment. I did a bunch of research and found articles with nothing but praise. Is the truth more nuanced than this?
Only my opinion – I'm living and working in Singapore since 7 years and it definitely is a good environment to do business. The justice system is reliable and predictable to not startle potential investors and the government itself does not misuse their undoubtedly great power they have over the country. Misusing it however would result in losing money and that's pretty much the only natural resource they have. I'm feeling more free in Singapore than in my home country because whenever I have to do with the government, I know there's someone to talk to with common sense and nearly everything can be done online. You can look forward to doing business there.
It's a bit more nuanced. My understanding is that for Singaporean citizens and PRs living in the country, registering a business is pretty fast, cheap, and easy. When the small foreign company I work for set up a subsidiary there, however, it was far more difficult. A lot of paperwork, required a SG legal firm and associated fees, answering a bunch of questions from the government about the business, required an existing local as the Director, etc. and it took months. The timezone difference certainly didn't help communication speed either. Then there's the visa process if you want to bring in anyone from outside of SG. Maybe it's less difficult for large multi-nationals.
* Many overseas educated locals helping with cultural cross pollination
* Locals often live with their parents until their late twenties (when they get married), so there are a lot of young people with low personal burn rates
* Lots of government funding and plenty of private capital around as well
* A good amount of big tech companies have offices here
* Major finance hub
* Very business friendly regulations
* Cost of living is reasonably scalable (meaning you can slum it out here or live like a king, depending on your success)
* Good access to Indonesia, Vietnam etc. for talent
* Thriving e-commerce ecosystem in Southeast Asia
* Decent meet up ecosystem
con:
* Rent is expensive (both residential and office space)
* Foreigner visas are not always easy to come by
I might add more later in a separate comment if i can think of more.
As long as you don't go against the government, it's pretty close to perfect. It's a different system, and it works. Many people think a country needs to follow Western's steps to be a good country, but maybe there are more than one way to govern? For a normal person, living in Singapore would pretty be the same as living in any other metropolitan.
It’s a benevolent dictatorship. Benevolence is in the eye of the beholder. As a visitor to that country it is easily one of the safest and cleanest countries in SE Asia.
I've been living and working in Singapore for two years now, coming from the United States. I'm a libertarian who finds politics and economics in the US to be horribly broken, and while in principle I don't agree with authoritarianism or planned economies, I'm also of the mind that one cannot apply a single concept of government to every culture. That's a colonial mindset.
America's liberal tradition came from many, many factors over hundreds of years. By comparison, Singapore is still in its infancy. While I don't agree with everything I see here, the system does work.
All that said, I'm applying for permanent residency here, because when I look at what's happening in America, in either major party, I don't have much of a desire to return. At least the Singaporean government is much more honest about what it is. It's not perfect, by any means, and it's expensive to live here, but it's clean and safe, it has the world's best airport, and it is a great place to do business.
We've asked you several times to stop breaking the site guidelines. If you keep doing it, we're going to have to ban you. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this?
Of course there's a dark side, but the truth is that a lack of real democracy, fair elections, human rights etc. just isn't going to matter to your average startup.
In fact, it's not going to matter to the average person, either.
I recently joined WikiTribune which is supposed to solve just that. It's still invite-only with a huge mailing list but you can get in early if you donate (I donate).
If anyone wants an invite email me at username @ gmail and I will try to send everyone invites (I have like 200) when I get back from JSConf.
I wonder if Jimbo Wales would consider white labeling this app or in providing managed nodes to media / content providers (in the way G Suite provides managed email services to third party orgs). There's a need to maintain control of the namespace and content and you lose that on yet another walled garden service.
I second this, I’ve been using it more and I really enjoy it. The only thing I would recommend people avoid is the original mastodon instance, since to combat losing market share they’ve been banning instances which sort of defeats the point of the fediverse. But gab and qoto.org are both good imo. You sort of get the close community of a smaller social network but since there’s a large programmer population they tend to build out really robust bot networks too.
There are various ways I could describe this, but good isn't one of them.
> Gab is an English-language social media website known for its far-right user base.[8] The site has been widely described as a "safe haven"[9] for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10]
> The site was launched in 2017 and claimed to have almost 1,000,000 registered user accounts by July 2019.[11] It primarily attracts far-right and alt-right users who have been banned from other social networks.[12][13][14] The platform populace is mainly populated by users who are "conservative, male, and Caucasian".[15] As of 2018, the site's most-followed users included high-profile far-right figures such as Richard B. Spencer, Mike Cernovich, and Alex Jones.[13][15] Gab recognizes far-right websites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars as competitors, according to a March 2018 financial filing.[16][17]
Any other Mastodon/fediverse instance is better than this.
Reserving any judgment on this specific action, I just note that it's all consistent with how Singapore has treated this in the past. From Lee Kuan Yew's autobiography:
> My early experiences in Singapore and Malaya shaped my views about the claim of the press to be the defender of truth and freedom of speech. The freedom of the press was the freedom of its owners to advance their personal and class interests.
(There follow a few examples of rich individuals forming their own newspapers, to push their preferred politics.)
> In the 1980s, Western-owned English-language publications became a significant presence in Singapore. [...] We have always banned communist publications; no Western media or media organization has ever protested against this. We have not banned any Western newspaper or journal. Yet they frequently refused us the right of reply when they misrepresented us. We decided in 1986 to enact a law to restrict the sale or distribution of foreign publications that had engaged in the domestic politics of Singapore. One of our tests for "engaging in the politics of Singapore" was whether, after they had misreported or slanted stories on Singapore, they refused to publish our reply. We did not ban them, only restricted the number of copies they sold. [...] This would reduce their advertising revenue but did not stop their reports from circulating. They could not accuse us of being afraid to have their reports read.
> Singapore's domestic debate is a matter for Singaporeans. [...] We cannot allow [American journalists] to assume a role in Singapore that the American media play in America. [...] Indeed, America's Federal Communications Commission regulations bar foreigners from owning more than 25 percent of a TV or radio station. Only Americans can control a business which influences opinion in America.
> Advanced in information technology, satellite broadcasting, and the Internet will enable Western media networks to saturate our domestic audience with their reports and views. Countries that try to block the use of IT will lose. We have to learn to manage this relentless flood of information so that the Singapore government's point of view is not smothered by the foreign media.
The memoir is incredibly prescient. Many of the policy debates held in Singapore in the 1980s mirror those held in America over the last three years, as we start to face a tiny fraction of the threats they dealt with daily. I wouldn't be surprised if the very same people who flaunt moral superiority over places like Singapore end up being the ones who take us in the exact same direction.
Given Facebook policy, they'll probably underweight the post in their algorithm but not take any step to remove it or put a "fake news" disclaimer on it. If they don't even correct fake news in the US, I doubt they care about fake news about Singapore.
> Should people be allowed to say and write lies in a "real" democracy?
Yes. In democracy, the public are the arbiters of truth. Particularly political truth.
Free speech doesn’t mean consequence-free speech. Cooling-down periods, mandatory preservation and disclosure requirements, et cetera are both prudent and commonplace. Court-supervised anti-fraud statute, which punishes for the harm done by the lie, not the speech itself, also helps.
Governments should not have the power to silence their critics. It’s a conflict of interest between the rulers and the ruled, and historically marches towards poverty, misery and instability.
And just spelling it out because "people should be allowed to tell lies" is terrible marketing:
There is no way to deduce the truth using the tools in the Government's toolbox or in public discourse. The more questions systems like the courts have to answer the more mistakes they will make; they aren't for discerning the truth instead only checking that standards of evidence have been met. There are a bunch of things that are untrue but that can be demonstrated to a high standard of evidence.
When governments try to do things that are impossible there are unwelcome side effects. Since they logically can't police the truth any attempt to do so will not have the intended outcome.
The difference being that science doesn’t consider truth a single absolute but a boundary on the body of knowledge. Old theorems are replaced by “truer” ones.
There are the pre- and post-execution exonerations [0] which are some good striking examples with human interest stories behind them. But really pick up a stack of court records proved to a substantial-evidence standard but not a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. Bunch of those are going to be situations where a it looks like something happened but actually a different thing happened.
There simply isn't a formal way of determining truth. If there was it'd be in use somewhere. All the processes that work best are ones where decisions are made in a fair process where evidence is invoked, but there isn't a reasonable argument that evidence always paints an accurate picture. It simply can't. There is no process that gets all the decisions right; evidence based decision making is not enough.
If it turned out courts correctly identified the truth 80% of the time when working through cases I'd be impressed. And that is where we have formal experts doing their best with controls against bias and the potential to have independent judges making decisions. The best legal standard we have is 'beyond reasonable doubt' - I've been in plenty of situations where that standard would accept a bad conclusion; eminently reasonable people who try to make good, thoroughly considered decisions still make mistakes. Reasonable people were once extremely sexist and racist; for an easy example. For something as wide-ranging as political truth there is simply no hope.
> In democracy, the public are the arbiters of truth. Particularly political truth.
Sadly, they are increasingly the arbiters of scientific truth. Part of me keeps expecting to hear some senator calling for the repeal of the law of gravity.
Perhaps that's because scientists had abused, the public trust in the not too distant past?
(that includes paper publishes as well authors).
I am interested however to learn/understand opinions of how to make the situation better.
For example, updating insensitive model that would include critical reviews of published work, independent confirmation of published work, and so on.
There could be a bias-adjustment model where if heavy majority of the government or business grants are looking for a particular 'answer' within a given subject-area, there need to be a counter-balance model (that, again, incentivizes a plausible discourse)
Today's intensives model for academia, appears to give lot of weight to # of papers being published.
In the areas where statistical significance of experiments/observations (rather than provable theoretical result) plays an important role -- this particular measure of 'one's academic achievement', could be responsible for the 'trust issues'
So if I go out posting "JumpCrisscross is a child molester" everywhere (only, say I found your real name somehow), you're good with that? No, that would be defamation and you could get a court order to get it taken down, unless I had enough evidence to prove the claim.
> But governments should not have the power to decide if criticism is truthful or not
They do, though. And for good reason, too. You wouldn't want to lose your job over a fraudulent hitpiece.
> for outright lies, wouldn’t libel or slander laws apply?
That would require the slandered party (a) prove it’s false and (b) demonstrate harm. There is also good reason for most slander and libel law withholding many remedies from public figures and politicians.
In this case, a department of a single-party city-state issued a takedown notice against allegations of election tampering. It is as illegitimate as it is Streisand-effect inducingly stupid.
Uncoincidentally, members of the PAP have a reputation for being rather aggressive in suing people for libel.
I think somewhere you have to accept that certain statements aren't true or false. What has changed recently is the willingness of people to view the statements of others as "lying" as opposed to having a different opinion. Unf, when the plaintiff is the government this becomes even more tricky (and I think a reasonable person would conclude that the PAP have used the legal system to supress criticism...I love Singapore, I love LKY...but it is what it is).
One of the consequences might be that if you say a lie about someone else, they will sue you for libel. And in an ideal world, the lie would be discovered and you'd lose that suit. So asking a user on facebook to remove a lie, then asking facebook to remove that lie, sounds like a fair thing to do in a "real" democracy.
> Governments should not have the power to silence their critics
I agree completely, but we are talking about the case when they are trying to silence a lie. That's different than critics.
In the US it is almost impossible for a public figure, especially a political figure, to win a libel lawsuit.
In theory, a deliberate, malicious false statement against a public figure would count as libel; but in practice basically everything is allowed. This prevents politicians from intimidating their critics with lawsuits.
EDITED TO ADD: In fact in the US there is pretty much a constant stream of false statements about every politician, and I can't recall any politician ever winning a libel case. Devin Nunes is trying currently, and basically making a fool of himself.
Wouldn't placing a notice on content deemed fake be more like what we do with slander/libel. Court reports create a record of the lie which aids the public in deciding who to deal with and creates an additional motivation not to lie. It also allows a person to disagree with the judgement.
"This content has been determined to be fake: [evidence or link to evidence]"
As an example I assume you're familiar with the treatment family of Sandy Hook victims have gotten? Where they have to deal with constant harassment and threats from people that believe it is a hoax and those that encourage them?
If you were to slap a content disclaimer saying 'this content is fake', they would just use that as fuel and proof that the government doesn't want you to know the truth. The lie directly harms people by simply existing even if you add a disclaimer.
> Court-supervised anti-fraud statute, which punishes for the harm done by the lie, not the speech itself, also helps.
Except the courts... in fact nobody, has any power to punish anyone for most of the fake news spread on Facebook in my country since it's all posted by anonymously controlled pages.
Isn't there a litany of examples where the government has the power to decide and enforce truthfulness? Stuff like health claims and protected designation of origin.
> health claims, protected designation of origin, and public schooling
None of these are like the allegations of election tampering the article discusses, which is squarely in the realm of First Amendment-protected speech in America.
Yes. While there’s arguments to be made against those laws, it seems to be relatively harmless to allow the government to be the arbiter of truth in a few limited situations where the truth is fairly easy to ascertain.
(What’s that you say? The truth of claims about the medical efficacy of drugs are actually hard to ascertain? That’s true, but you’ll note that the standard of truth required by law is easy to ascertain — the question is not whether your drug cures cancer but whether you’ve gone through a specific FDA-approved process to test whether it does, and passed.)
The only institution in a democratic society in general that acts to determine truth is the court system. While a countless number of bureaucrats may make routine judgements about the truth, any disputes over that tend to head to a court.
In court trials, the smallest details of truth are liable to be deliberated and argued over extensively, often producing outcomes that satisfy no interested parties.
It’s easy to have an opinion about what is an “outright lie”, it’s more or less impossible to prove it, and it is literally Orwellian to establish an authority to preside over it.
The moment that lies are forbidden is the moment that someone needs to decide the difference between truth and falsehood.
Is that a decree by the state? The result of an expensive and protracted legal process? Do we put it to a vote? Is there a Committee of Truth? A permit system? Digital signatures on all postings, with co-signees and chains of responsibility? Or do we just wind up with he usual weak and unevenly enforced rules, subject to bribery and political influence?
Forbidding speech is a slippery and precipitous slope. A government that aims to protect its people from lies is well on the road to despotism.
When it comes to politics what is and what isn't a lie is often not a binary decision but a nuanced one. Depending on different viewpoints what is and what isn't a lie is not clear.
Sure. It's the world Americans already live in, except for certain specifically defined types of lies (e.g. fraud, perjury, libel of non-public figures, etc).
It is possible that SK PAP politicians are just damn good at their jobs -- The modern history of Singapore does seem to suggest this.
But it's also possible that no viable oppositions are allowed to organize effectively enough to compete fairly.
My personal yardstick for judging a healthy and mature democracy is counting how many times political power has changed hands without violence -- Singapore is yet to score after 60 years.
> But it's also possible that no viable oppositions are allowed to organize effectively enough to compete fairly.
The odds are stacked against the opposition — for some reason, elected Members of Parliament are required to manage their individual town councils as well. The opposition that won a group constituency recently got a lawsuit slapped against them for "mismanagement" [1].
It's a mix. PAP are quite competent and has improved lifes greatly. On the hand there is the GRC concept that screw opposition. GRC are constitutcies which are worth multiple parliament seats. Only one was won by opposition and that was by a razor thin margin. GRC also make gerymendering easier and less obvious.
There is a third option, that the election system is designed to allow only the desired result. For example, only two of the five possible Singapore Presidential elections have been contested.
> There is a third option, that the election system is designed to allow only the desired result. For example, only two of the five possible Singapore Presidential elections have been contested.
Adding on: this is because the PAP in Singapore controls more than two-thirds of parliament [1], and have been able to push through constitutional changes without much consultation [2].
I think the increase in the private-sector requirement for candidates of our presidency (overtly disqualifying Tan Cheng Bock, a former PAP MP who was a candidate for the presidential elections, and is now the leader of an opposition party) slipped past many of our political critics until it was too late; a lot of uproar was focused on the elections being reserved for people from a specific ethnic group [3].
Singaporean here - I don't think they are faked. It's just that we don't have strong opposition party. Many opposition parties here spent majority of their time complaining every single decision the government makes instead of making actual contribution to the society.
Sometimes SNG expat here. Why exactly do you think that is?
Surely there is enough highly talented, smart people to have a crack at a political office that's been held for decades and of course an enthusiastic young generation who have lived under this system perhaps interested in a change? It's a country with one of the highest average IQ's on Earth and I'm always intrigued by the statement "no viable opposition". There's definitely a viable everything else in the nation, wondering why politics is so different. It's an amazing place to live from my Australian perspective.
I'd argue that everyone couldn't care less given the history and are fine with the system as exists. Which seems to backed up by a lot of elections.
My theory is people who want to join politics, do it for power, for money, for status. Put yourself in their shoes, which party would you affiliate with to set yourself up? PAP also have an extensive network of grassroot organizations to recruit any young talents who want to join. It's very hard to change the status quo unless PAP leadership makes a series of catastrophic mistakes.
> My theory is people who want to join politics, do it for power, for money, for status. Put yourself in their shoes, which party would you affiliate with to set yourself up?
Not all political candidates seek power, money, or status.
Some might just want parliament to be more diverse than one party making up more than two-thirds of it, and having the power to push through constitutional changes any time they want.
Aspiring politicians who join the PAP hoping to steer it from within probably haven't thought about how they're subject to the party whip [1], and how nobody has disobeyed the whip since Tan Cheng Bock.
It's sort of a Catch-22 but worse. No one good joins the opposition parties because they don't stand a chance of winning, and the opposition parties don't stand a chance of winning because no one good joins them. Even if the opposition parties were suddenly magically packed full of talent one year, the PAP still has the senior vote, track record, civil servant connections, and actual governing experience for Singapore that none of the opposition could possibly have. Singaporeans don't elect on ideals and promises for change, they elect on feelings of stability and security. The only way I can see an opposition party putting up real competition and having a chance at attaining a majority in parliament is if a quarter to half of the PAP schisms and joins the WP, which isn't likely.
> Many opposition parties here spent majority of their time complaining every single decision the government makes instead of making actual contribution to the society.
What would you consider "actual contribution to the society"? Any chance you could give examples of some things you would like to see opposition candidates do?
No, it's certainly not faked. There is no viable oppositions, the reason for this is a whole different story. Many of my Singaporean friends would GLADLY vote for an opposition party to keep PAP in check but they simply don't match the quality of PAP's candidates.
It's actually perfectly reasonable to subject American companies to the laws of nations they operate in unless you're suggesting they ought to act in imperial fashion and ignore the law of sovereign nations.
It goes without saying that the same is, of course, true for foreign companies in the US.
How do you define 'operating in' for a web service? I would suggest they are operating on the internet, out of the US, therefore bound only to US law. Having the service accessible worldwide shouldn't make you subject to everyone's laws.
I guess it depends on whether they have ads paid for by Singaporean based companies targetting Singaporean based audiences. If Coca-Cola sells their wares in Singapore entirely by remote operations based in the United States, we'd still expect them to abide by Singaporean regulations pertaining to the sale of beverages in Singapore, taxes etc.
The alternative would seem to be separate national internets. Data might be imported and exported, but it wouldn't be seamless like today.
You can say you're not subject to a foreign law, but if you want that market, you aren't really immune.
If Coca-Cola sells remotely, I would imagine that would be through a local importer, and it would fall on him to follow the local regulation, or through a local subsidiary, and the same would apply. So yes, Singapore should have to separate from the internet if it wants to enforce its laws imo.
So would that be 'Facebook USA' or the local subsidiary? Of course 'Facebook Singapore' needs to respect Singapore law, but the question was wether 'Facebook USA' needs to.
They are asking a US company to censor the words of an Australian because its about them. There are 190 something depending on who you count nations in the world. Anyone who connects a server to the internet is instantly "operating" in every one of them to some degree.
A company should expect to be subject to risk whatever assets it has in a nation and ought to ensure they don't HAVE assets to lose anywhere that is likely to make unreasonable demands or confiscate these assets.
This is because the alternative is only allowing speech that would pass muster in all.
If you have the ability to moderate and modify posts on your platform, everyone and their mother is going to come after you and try to force you to exercise that power. It looks like Facebook gets to find out what happens when governments try to make you do that.
What about blacking out the text of the post with redaction bars, and adding a link to a copy of the government's order? Obey the letter of the law, yet call out the official oppression to the reader in a way that maximizes the ugliness.
> Facebook has previously said it was “concerned with aspects of the new law which grant broad powers to the Singapore executive branch to compel us to remove content they deem to be false and to push a government notification to users”.
How comical is this coming from Facebook that went all out combating "fake news" but they now they are concerned about arbitrary censorship?
As with many places, the situation in my country is a bit more nuanced than a simple "the ruling party has ruled the country since 1965". Civilisation is the surrender of varying degrees of civil liberty for security and safety, and over here we definitely surrender more degrees of civil liberty for the safety and security of our streets. As another user put it, essentially a benevolent dictatorship, emphasis on the benevolent. For the most part, the ruling party has done a good job with the administration of the government. Things are fast and efficient. Is it worth the trade? It depends on your perspective. Even as a liberal, I agree that the paternalism of the government is not without its merits.
There were quite a lot of push-back on the POFMA (what the fake news law is called) among the people, though our politicians, no doubt because of their same-party membership, barely discussed anything concrete in our parliamentary debates. In the end, the law was passed because of course it would be.