Singapore Is Taking the ‘Smart City’ to a New Level | Hacker News Reader

Singapore Is Taking the ‘Smart City’ to a New Level

wsj.com

149 pointsjwblackwell199 comments

> “The big, big elephant in the room is protection of privacy and ensuring security,” says Vivian Balakrishnan, Singapore’s foreign affairs minister and minister-in-charge of Smart Nation.

The idea that Singapore will protect the privacy of its citizens (or their access to information) is not credible in light of:

* http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/06/regulating-sin...

and

* https://sg.news.yahoo.com/-smart-nation--singapore-will-be-w...

The ruling party uses power to eliminate opposition:

* http://www.csmonitor.com/1990/0731/eross.html

and

* https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1P2-33363045/suppression-i...

Many, many other examples can be found with minimal searching.

It baffles me that media-tech companies such as Ghost want to relocate there: https://blog.ghost.org/moving-to-singapore/

What is wrong with Singapore? It's a start up heven.

Lol such typical HN users, lets not provide a valid argument, lets just downvote because we have no argument.

You made a point on your own Twitter account of what is wrong with Singapore

https://twitter.com/philliphaydon/status/720811398025109504

I point out a positive in Singapore and you say its whats wrong with Singapore?

Banning people's ability to protest is a positive social and cultural trait for you? Fuck that. That just made me think twice about ever bothering visiting.

With what's going on in America right now, restricting peoples abilities to protest is a blessing. So many people protesting against things they don't understand, people becoming violent. Blah. I love Singapore.

Really? And who determines what can you protest against/about? , do you have to pass an exam to protest certain things or a college degree is valid? Restricting peoples abilities to protest is one of the first things that dictatorships do.

Did you forget about the violent responses to the peaceful Occupy Wall Street protests? Tightly controlled "Free Speech Zones"? That is what we have in the USA, coupled with propaganda ridden corporate news. I don't think that we are in a position to criticize other countries too much since we have our own problems.

I just got back from a business trip to Singapore, and considering how that area was devastated by the occupation during WW2, it is amazing how fast they have built a very good place to live.

Experiencing specific forms of tyranny puts us in a perfect position to call out the same patterns in other countries and warn them so they can counter it before it's too late. Apathy by the majority is what screws America up. That Singaporeans actually care collectively about theirs and invest in their country's future is one of their most enviable traits. If Americans had that in mass, then our freedoms, votes, and capital would give us control of the country and vast improvements in one election cycle.

It's amazing how many Americans believe the propaganda about how free and liberal we are. Except I have to pay taxes to the US even if I don't live there and can't play poker legally if I do.

There's a good saying: "None are more hopelessly enslaved, than those who falsely believe they are free." I donno who the quote is from.

Ugh.

Because the comment you replied to contained enough valid arguments.

You didn't provide any argument for your statement. Singapore is also an extraordinarily expensive place to live, which doesn't seem like startup heaven to me.

Rubbish. I spent 5 years living in Sydney, Australia, before moving to Singapore.

Unless you want to live a high roller expat life-style in a condo and own a car, Singapore is NOT expensive.

And please don't refer to that terrible study that puts Singapore as the most expensive place to live, it's designed for companies to create packages for people for recruitment. It includes things like owning a car (something that is definitely not needed in Singapore), the price of alcohol (not a requirement to live), and living in an expensive condo (HDB's are excluded from the study)

Sydney on the other hand, costs more for an apartment in the city, public transport is more expensive, especially taxis, food and drink is more expensive (exception is Alcohol and Beef), utilities (power/gas/internet) is all more expensive.

My last tax bill in Sydney was about 22k when I left. My first full year in Singapore was like ~3k, and the government gave $1000 back. And the best part about it is you see all your money going back into the country, rather than lining the pockets of individuals to pass the blame on the failing like they do in Australia/New Zealand.

HDBs are still expensive. 2k SG for a small 2 bedroom HDB and very expensive electricity are not a good mix and there are very few studio or 1 bedroom HDBs. In most non coastal cities in the US you can get a studio for $600 USD.

In U.S. South near big cities, you can easily get a whole house with 3 bedrooms, two bathrooms, living room, kitchen, back/front yard, electricity, and high-speed Internet all for about $1,300 a month. Cheaper if you are about 10 minutes out into rural areas.

Either people make serious money in Singapore or their poor are pretty crunched in terms of living space. I don't have data to answer that.

Hmm I did a quick search for New York - Downtown, as I figure in terms of status and location that seems comparable to Singapore.

The prices seem to range from 3k to 15k / month. This is like living in a Condo in Singapore.

http://streeteasy.com/for-rent/downtown/beds:2

Feel free to correct me, I've only been to America a couple of times, so I don't know the most appropriate place to search for comparison.

Rent would be considered a lot for most Singaporeans, however being ang moh I automatically pay more anyway. I know people living in my building who pay half what I pay in rent simply because they are Singaporean.

Also young Singaporeans live at home with their parents well into their 20s, and often get engaged and order an HDB which they start paying before they get married. They are not allowed to move in (by law) until they are married, and can only buy as a single if they are over the age of (35) i believe.

This is to encourage marriage. Likewise the lack of single bedroom HDBs is to encourage starting a family by having the rooms available. etc.

----

I pay $2600/m (divided by 2 because I live with someone else) for a 2 bedroom hdb, that's bigger than the $2800 2bedroom apartment I had living in Sydney.

My power bill in Sydney was about $210/m while in Singapore its about $110/m.

Internet in Sydney was about $120/m for ADSL2+ (that connected at 2.5mbit) while in Singapore I pay $59 for uncapped, unthrottled, 1gb down / 500mbit up.

Taxi in Sydney cost me $27 to get to work in the morning. In Singapore, it takes 3x as long to get to work in a taxi and costs $10.

Train in Sydney cost me about $7/day and because it was only a few stops it would cost more to get a monthly or yearly pass than to just pay each day. Singapore costs me $1.18 to get to work and $0.90 to get home.

Basically my cost of living has significantly dropped living in Singapore. I'm not saying its like that for everyone. People I work with live in Condo's and pay a lot more than I do.

"New York - Downtown, as I figure in terms of status and location that seems comparable to Singapore."

"Feel free to correct me, I've only been to America a couple of times, so I don't know the most appropriate place to search for comparison."

You narrowed the scope of our conversation to one of the most expensive and famous parts of the entire United States to compare to the average of Singapore? At least you offered that you don't know where to do the comparison. ;) In my area (Memphis Metropolitan), there's tons of businesses, restaurants, activities, service sector, events... you name it. It's not even one of best areas: actually a bad one. Yet, just around $1000 a month. Lots of areas in the South are like that where I hear some suburbs in Northeast near tech capitals are as well. West is expensive everywhere. Good parts of big name cities like NYC, LA, Chicago, etc are as well.

So, it's best to avoid comparisons with those as mostly rich people live there. The rest of us dare not try. :)

"I know people living in my building who pay half what I pay in rent simply because they are Singaporean."

Never heard of this before. How does that work?

"They are not allowed to move in (by law) until they are married, and can only buy as a single if they are over the age of (35) i believe."

That's really messed up. Thanks for telling me, though.

"I pay..."

Your house is double or more what many Americans will pay in rent. The power bill is reasonable if that comes with water. Or does water come with rent or free? The internet leaves me jealouse: I heard you had uncapped Gigabit but didn't know how many or how much. $59/mo. Wow. Corruption is preventing that here with a handful of cities having gigabit ranging from a little above that to $350/mo. Corruption puts me at 50Mbps down with a cap for $70/mo.

"Taxi in Sydney cost me $27 to get to work in the morning. In Singapore, it takes 3x as long to get to work in a taxi and costs $10."

Hmm. I've always wondered about this tradeoff but have no hard data on it. It happens here. In cities, people taxi or walk to work. Rates I paid were similar. Out here in suburbs, we mostly own cars to do that 20-30min drive I mentioned. Gas is maybe $5 a day. Car and insurance can be had for as little as $600 a month for 4 years. Interesting enough, that puts it at about the same rate per day although we pay with or without a trip to work. Ego reasons mean many people pay a lot more for their car, though. ;)

"Basically my cost of living has significantly dropped living in Singapore."

That I believe. Australians tell me the country is expensive to live in if we're talking the cities. You might have dropped your cost of living moving to... anywhere. Just kidding but cities cost $$$ in First World countries with Singapore obviously cheaper.

So, what kind of work do you do? With good hours, wages, and breaks? Is that average for your area?

"Never heard of this before. How does that work?"

It's just assumed that because I'm white I earn more money so I can afford to stay here.

"The power bill is reasonable if that comes with water. Or does water come with rent or free?"

Includes water in the power/gas bill.

"So, what kind of work do you do? With good hours, wages, and breaks? Is that average for your area?"

Just a lowly .NET dev. 10am till 6pm, good salary, hour lunch. There's a huge need for developers in Singapore. Singaporeans seem to get pushed towards Doctor/Lawyer/Accountant by their family, and those who do programming, often end up in big companies like IBM etc where they earn less and become a number, because family thinks that startups are not a good secure future. Atleast that's what i'm told from Singaporean programmers.

Traveling from Singapore is awesome too. Got return flights to Taiwan for a week for $70, been to Cambodia for $80 return, japan for $260 return, thailand for $160 return. Etc. Great for weekend trips. Fly friday night come home sunday night. :)

What are dev salaries like in Singapore?

I'd appreciate dev's in Singapore confirming or rejecting this range with details:

http://www.payscale.com/research/SG/Job=Software_Engineer/Sa...

https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/singapore-software-engine...

I believe it's highly dependent on where you are from.

Glass door has the average salary as < 4000/m, but to get an employment pass (EP) you need to be paid minimum of 4000/m

There's linkedin jobs that go from 5k up to 14k.

As far as I know, Java roles pay rather low because theres lots of developers from India who will fill those positions, but there are very few Node / .NET developers and so those roles get quite a bit more.

I mostly do .NET tho, bit of Node, and currently learning golang (even tho I dont think there are any golang jobs in Singapore, want to learn something new)

Basically I cannot confirm or deny those links because there are lots of factors to consider. The market here is very different to Australia where all roles are around the same range regardless of language.

NYC is the best comparison to Singapore because they have comparable population and density. Memphis is a relatively tiny city with 650k people.

It is if you're comparing cities. We're comparing countries. America is very diverse in this regard even geographically. Want expensive, dense city? We have them. Want to spend no more than $1300/yr with access to many jobs and activities? My area and dozens of others. Want to live off the land in isolation with a home costing a few grand? Rural areas further south of me have that.

So, comparing Singapore to U.S. means we win on cost of living vs what we get for it because we have tons of lower cost options with similar benefits. Still, I gave them the Internet as I might up my rent $500 to get unmetered Gigabit. I would but can't except in a few areas most of which are quite isolated.

Singapore is a city state. The entire country is a single city, with a population density comparable to New York City (18,645/sq mi vs 26,403/sq mi; and unlike NYC, large slabs of Singapore are used for heavy industry or military purposes).

I knew it was small but didn't remember that it was that small. Hmm. My counter still stands as choosing a country based on options it gives you still leads to better value for real estate in U.S.. The extra information I'm getting just makes it more clear why this is true. It's still a drawback, though, that doesn't exist everywhere. It must be factored into cost-benefit analysis.

It's hard for me to compare the cost of living in Singapore vs (insert American city) because I've never lived there. I can only compare to Australia because I lived there for 5 years after leaving New Zealand.

There's a lot of things that are far cheaper in America, for example I can buy an SSD cheaper on Amazon shipped to Singapore, than buying it in Singapore. But then (having visited only a couple of times) I'm unaware of anywhere to get lunch for $4(sgd) in America.

Singapore can definitely be an expensive place to live. If you choose that sort of life-style. However your federal tax alone is more than my whole income tax. And if Sanders gets his way, that will go up even more. Coupled with State tax, I can only guess my disposable income is more in Singapore than it would be in America.

For example, lets say that USD/SGD was 1:1, with a yearly salary of $75,000. In America the federal tax alone is 17,666. (not including state tax)

In Singapore the income tax on that would be $2000, however every couple of years Singapore does 50% tax rebate up to the first $1000. So the effective tax for last year would have been $1000. Meaning your net income was $74,000 vs $57,334.

This doesn't include singapore's common "13th month" salary which is often an extra month of salary as bonus, usually to cover the cost of taxes as tax is not withheld here like it is in Australia / NZ.

That means you would get an extra $6200 (approx) on top of the 75k, making your net income more around $80,000

If you paid $500/m rent in the US that's $6k/yr, in singapore you pay say $1,300 or $13,000/yr

So that leaves you with:

US: $51,334 SG: $67,000

https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes

I don't fully understand how you do taxes in America, but based on my limited research from when I wanted to live in America, and just now, this is what I worked out. This isn't meant to be factual and proof of the cost of living between the two countries.

Edit: Also not a good idea if you're American to move to Singapore to work, since you get double taxed. Even all forms here in Singapore ask if you're American Tax Citizen.

Let's just run through this see what we can quickly glean.

The meals may be cheaper. What's that constitute a meal, though? Here, I can get a footlong sub and side items for $8-10. A restaurant meal, with tip, is going to be $10-15 per seat if it's an inexpensive one with one plate and a drink. What's the $2-3 USD you claimed get you?

For taxes, I try to stay in states with no state tax. So, it's just federal. We get various types of deducations that should be considered. I'm ignoring that to simplify to worst case. So, $75,000 is $5,156.25 + 25% of amount over $37,450. That's $14543.75 of tax. That leaves $60,456.25 of disposable income in an area with cost of living of $15,600 which leaves me with $44,856.25.

Note: Wait, are you paying $1,300 for your part of rent or is that the whole rent? If we're halving it for a roommate, I can drop a few hundred off mine to add a few thousand a year. That's still around $50,000/yr so not huge difference.

"This doesn't include singapore's common "13th month" salary which is often an extra month of salary as bonus, usually to cover the cost of taxes as tax is not withheld here like it is in Australia / NZ."

We do withholding here, too. Many withhold extra to cover for overtime as the IRS will come after our ass if we don't have the difference. People like the check they get during tax season, though. So, similar in practice to the bonus but with some differences.

"Also not a good idea if you're American to move to Singapore to work, since you get double taxed. Even all forms here in Singapore ask if you're American Tax Citizen."

That last part is due to all the tax avoidance and U.S. cracking down on it. We can't even open a bank account in some places like Switzerland. Plus, if we renounce citizenship over taxes, they claim taxes on 10 years of our income in the new country as punishment. Taxes are not among America's strong suit unless you're rich enough to avoid them with loopholes designed for the rich. :)

Good to see you are enjoying your stay in SG, Phillip.

Hacker News comments on Singapore are always a great reminder that a majority of opinions on social media are laughably misinformed and ignorant. Being verbose and decent technologists != able to source accurately and provide cogent arguments without letting personal biases get in the way.

The last time this happened, people were quoting Kenneth Jeyaretnam, James D Ross and Roy Ngerng as credible sources. In fact, it is happening right in this very thread.

Don't waste your energy, Phillip. :)

> laughably misinformed and ignorant.

How many more decades should I live here before I'm no longer ignorant?

Not a fan of authoritarian governments, but I have to say that from the perspective of a UK-based SaaS company trying to cope with VATMOSS, their reasons are more than a little compelling. Sometimes pragmatism really does need to win the day.

They can open a Nevada or Delaware corporation in the U.S. that hires from the tech scene. They'll have speech/press freedom, almost no taxes, plenty IT people to draw on a low-wages, Stripe support, no VATMOSS, and easy business dealings with any country.

Wonder why that wasn't on the list given we're the start-a-business-and-get-rich capital of the world.

Did you get the irony of a platform for personal expression and sometimes dissent moving into a country that suppresses dissent and narrows personal expression? Unreal. They've clearly bought into the propaganda with the list they posted. It's half right but counterexamples show transparency and corruption should be off it entirely with trust in politicians and education having qualifiers.

It is a good place to do business with people capable of it, low risks, and so on. In general. Yet, I wouldn't bring in anything that's about personal expression or privacy. That's just incredibly stupid given long-term risks.

>The ruling party uses power to eliminate opposition

That article is from 1990. More than 20 years ago. If you had looked a little further you would have found that Singapore increased the number of people in parliament who represent the opposition.[1] It is slow progress, but it's still progress.

Please don't be too quick to judge other countries regarding the subjects of privacy, representation and human rights. The reason for that is that if Asian countries have specks in their eyes regarding those issues, Western countries have telephone poles stuck in theirs for their breaches of privacy, representation, racism and human rights.

[1] http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/more-ncmps-in-...

The newsoutlet linked to above is owned by Mediacorp which is in-turn owned by Temasek Holdings, an investment arm of the Singaporean government.

Almost all media in Singapore is owned/part-owned by the government.

They exert editorial influence on all their holdings.

Doesn't detract from the FACT that their government is INCREASING opposition seats instead of repressing opposition.

People have voted for the opposition in the face of incredibly unfair elections where the opponent is given just a few weeks where they can campaign and the media is controlled by the government.

Don't buy into their propaganda, their lies are pretty blatant if you take 60 seconds to do a search.

One of Singapore's prominent politicians in the late 90's wrote an essay about why Singapore does not have free speech. He said that the U.S. requires free speech because the press acts as a check on a corrupt government. In Singapore, he claimed, the government must instead act as a check on a corrupt press.

How's that for logic? You can find this article in a book of many similar essays available right up front in most major bookstores of Singapore.

You seem to be saying that one of those propositions is prima facie absurd, but I'm not seeing it. Who would disagree that checking corruption in industry is a primary function of government?

Even as an ignostic, I can appreciate the amusing and relevant use of the words of Jesus.

Also a recent must-see documentary about Singapore repressive ruling party is Jason Soo's "1987: Untracing the Conspiracy"[1]

[1] http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016/04/interview-jason-soo-...

"In 1987, 22 people were arrested under Singapore’s Internal Security Act (ISA) in a security exercise known as Operation Spectrum.

Accused of being involved in a Marxist conspiracy to establish a communist state, many detainees were tortured and then coerced into implicating themselves and their friends on public television."

> Accused of being involved in a Marxist conspiracy to establish a communist state, many detainees were tortured and then coerced into implicating themselves and their friends on public television.

Wow! Stalinist tactics against Marxism.

And Singapore shows how much you can accomplish when Marxists are removed from society.

The pendulum has already swung back somewhat: Since the '00s, the ruling party has been quietly ramping up the social safety net (various subsidy programs for the low-income), implemented universal healthcare to an extent (keeping health insurance costs low), and focused a lot on aiding older unemployed citizens (wage subsidies, retraining, upgrading). Government departments focus more on "customer service" and have a "no wrong door" policy.

It's been a gradual moderation since the '90s and before, when things were more uptight and anti-welfare-state. I remember the "OB markers", stuff that was out-of-bounds for public discussion - much of those have been eroded by blogs, forums & social media. So, not Marxism, just a shift away from pure capitalism and authoritarianism.

Even its "pure capitalism" has had a lot of public housing projects, right from the get-go. (And stuff we take for granted like public education.) I think its policies can be derived more from a "no passengers" ethos and the need to react to present living standards and their growth rate.

Sounds like something the US would do.

Bottom line is: Singapore is not for everyone. If you're willing to give up some civil liberties for an efficiently-run nation where you can generally walk around without fear of getting stabbed or robbed, then it's the perfect place for you.

> Bottom line is: Singapore is not for everyone.

This seems an oddly difficult proposition to grasp for a lot of people who have never lived in, visited, or been anywhere near Singapore, nor have any plans to do so.

Yeah, "Singapore is not for everyone" seems an extremely odd argument to me, given that unlike a health club or a gated community, the majority of Singapore's residents don't have any easy way to leave.

The headline of this article is: "More than half of S'poreans would migrate if given a choice: Survey"

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Singapore/Story/A1S...

"More than half of a tiny and almost certainly unrepresentative fraction of Singaporeans" would be a more accurate description. Arguing from headlines seems like it must be an uncomfortable place to be.

The CIA World Factbook estimates a 1.5% net immigration rate for Singapore in 2015. They don't seem to break out immigration vs. emigration, so I'm not sure how frequently people leave, but a quick glance at Google results for "singapore emigration" suggests people leave frequently enough for some pundits to consider it a problem, which makes it seem improbable that doing so is all that difficult.

That people describe emigration as a problem says something. Most citizens of any given nation won't leave, and generally feel like they can't leave, because emigration requires either resources and skills or extreme desperation.

Virtually all nations of the world put a fairly high bar to immigration. For this reason, a nation's willingness to allow immigration at all tends to determine it's immigration rate since there are numerous areas of the world whose citizens are in extreme desperation.

You observe this from this chart of world immigration rates. Sweden is a pleasant destination for immigrants, Jordon and Libya less so but both have high immigrations rates.

The original argument was "Singapore is not for everyone" and my point that Singapore pretty much is for everyone who's a citizen without a whole lot of resources. It's not a matter of taste akin to an exclusive club.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=sn&v=27

Singapore can be a very uncomfortable place to live if you're Singaporean, poor and unskilled, which is also precisely the combination that makes it virtually impossible to emigrate.

Every now and then the gov't media accidentally lets the veil slip, as in a story about a retired old lady who worked as a hawker centre table cleaner with wages of around S$190 per month (around US$100, this in a country with higher cost of living than the US) and slept in a pile of cardboard boxes on a public housing block's "void deck" (outdoor forecourt). This wasn't the story, mind you, since this is what happens to you if you have no retirement funds or family to support you in Singapore; the story was that somebody had stolen her S$90 of savings.

Seems like a vague question without knowing exactly what constraint they're worried about. Are they too poor to afford the move? Singaporean expats have a harder time getting visas? Restrictions on getting a passport to leave?

We see similar figures for NYC, which just underscores the need to pin down what "can leave" means: http://patch.com/new-york/westislip/would-you-leave-ny-if-yo...

Bottom line is: Singapore will give you safe nation to live in if you give up control of your life, labor protections, ability to find truths about country (eg fair media), and control over your future (dissent suppression). Several thousand years of world history show that is going to be a bad deal for many people in the country and maybe the country as a whole given enough time.

They do quite a few things right but need to counter the worst parts before it's too late. Might become the capitalist version of North Korea some day. Or something less severe but similarly hard to mentally escape or improve on via politics.

Singaporean here. How exactly have I given up the "ability to find truths about (my) country" and "control over my future"? Do elaborate, please!

Do you have an independent media that can report on whatever goes on in your country, including negative info, with immunity to prosecution? Do you have individual protection in that case?

If you don't, then you can't reliably get the truth except for people taking personal risks on blogs and stuff. You can only hope your regime will provide it to you through media they control. And never do anything seriously wrong. Having read history books, I don't think that's even possible in the long run.

How do you define "independent media"? My impression is that the media industry in Singapore is near-centralized because of the size of the market. There's really just not enough people to support multiple large news organizations.

I'm not sure if there's anything that the media "can't report". When the government fucks up, the media reports it. When a terrorist escaped detention, it was reported. When soldiers die, it gets reported. When there's corruption, it's reported. [1] [2] [3].

What sort of event do you foresee happening that wouldn't get reported? The media even acknowledges the State's past detentions-without-trial [4] [5]. There's some visible bias, but it's visible, and any intelligent person can infer that things are a little less tidy and clean.

I actually protested against some attempted media regulations a few years back. None of us were prosecuted, or worried about being prosecuted.

The people running our government are smart people. They know that they need to be respected and be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the people. You can't really hide anything for long, and especially not somewhere as small as Singapore. The truth always comes out sooner or later. I dare say it's far likelier that states like the USA hide things from their people– and that's not a value judgement about the USA itself, but a statement about the difference in size of Govt. A tiny island-city-state can't sustain the sort of epic state apparatus that would get up to crazy shit.

[1] http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ex-scdf-chief-peter-li...

[2] http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ex-mfa-protocol-chief-...

[3] http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ex-cpib-assistant-dire...

[4] http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/revisiting-operation-col...

[5] http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-government-r...

I define it as a media that is financially independent from the government and with little influence from them. I wasn't aware that the media reports as much as it does based on what Singaporeans told me in past. There could be a bias there.

I appreciate the links. Ill look into them. One thing you might clarify is how much reporting contradicts the very nature of the regime, government, and way the system works. Journalist that ask thd big questioms with alternatives provided with references showing they'd likely work. We get that in American media, including HN, all thd time. That's critical for reform.

Do you have examples of that in Singaporean media?

> I appreciate the links.

Happy to share! :-)

> One thing you might clarify is how much reporting contradicts the very nature of the regime, government, and way the system works. [...] That's critical for reform.

I think this is one of those things where we run into one of those massive fundamental differences in perspective– about the value of contradiction and its role in reform.

I don't personally believe that "contradictory reporting -> reform". I surprise myself a little by saying that – in my teenage days I spent a lot of time writing blogposts that were deliberately critical of the media and the State. I got a lot of traffic to my blog, but I don't feel like I made much of a difference. I don't feel like I contributed towards reform. All I did was give people links that they could share on Facebook to argue with their friends about. I'm starting to share Obama's perspective on this– if you want real change, you have to get involved in the political process. And that doesn't actually require the sound-and-fury way of doing things.

I think INDEPENDENT THINKING is necessary for reform, and diverse, independent thought doesn't necessarily always emerge from A vs B. In fact, I've come to believe (from personal experience, mostly) that contrarian thinking tends to lead to very entrenched opposing camps, which leads to deadlock.

As another comment pointed out– Singapore is always constantly reforming, and a healthy, steady pace [1]. Our population sees no need for massive adjustments. I personally think in areas like legalizing gay marriage, removing the mandatory death penalty for drugs, etc we really ought to take some big leaps, but people are already making those arguments and progress is slow. But there is progress. And it's not the state that's holding the progress back– large portions of the population legitimately are indifferent or conservative or "if it ain't broke...".

So anyway– to answer your question– the media rarely contradicts the Govt or the system directly. But that doesn't necessarily mean what it seems. Criticisms exist, they're just subtly put.

Here's a very interesting article [2], from someone who's known to be a high-ranking journalist from a pro-establishment background:

> There is also the argument that a stronger opposition is good for Singapore's political development, not just as leverage against the PAP. Even some PAP ministers have said this.

> According to this view, a strong opposition provides checks and balances on the ruling party. It sets Singapore further along the path towards a two-party system, the dream of political liberals who do not buy the PAP's argument that Singapore is so tiny and so exceptional, it can only be governed by the PAP's pre-selected A-team of political leaders, and that it lacks the talent base for other parties to build up a credible alternative. Each election that sees capable individuals joining the opposition dents that argument.

> All that is needed next is for those capable individuals to coalesce around one or two serious political parties and their leaders, learn to compromise and work together, and win voters' support. Singapore can then become a "normal" country with a political system that remains stable even when parties alternate in power.

> It may undergo a period of turbulence in the transition, but settle into a stable equilibrium. Then, the biggest risk for Singapore - of having a system untested by alternation of political power - will be neutralised.

That might not seem like a big deal, but it was published by a "high-ranking" journalist in the national newspapers, legitimizing a non-PAP future for Singapore. It would've been unthinkable 10 years ago. And that's the kind of progress and reform we're proud of. A response to that might be "that's so tame, that's so mild!" – but we like it that way. Less blood and death. Nobody gets pepper-sprayed or tazed. It's more elegant.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11572889

[2] http://www.straitstimes.com/politics/singapolitics/is-a-stro...

I've only lived in Singapore for three years, but I do read the Straits times every day (I'm a paper and digital subscriber), get the daily update in email, and subscribe to their notifications.

The straitstimes is fascinating in that it so different from any newspaper that I'm familiar with in the United States (I subscribe to the NYT, and have the SJ Mercury news, and WSJ in the past). In many ways, it feels like a government newsletter, with clearly government approved messaging on things like the budgets, healthcare, elections, etc..

The "Structure" of the newspaper stories, particular on the front page, is also remarkably consistent over the last few years - usually with a story from one of the following collection - Story about a maid, story about something good in Singapore, Story about something bad in the rest of the world that wouldn't happen in singapore, story about someone who did something bad, and got caught, and what their punishment was, story about issues regarding racial/religious harmony. The complete lack of LGBT stories is also fascinating. And you will almost never, ever see a story regarding the liberalization of drugs.

For better or worse, the media is clearly not independent - whether that's a good or bad thing is unclear to me. Singapore is certainly a very safe and clean place to live in, with little visible signs of poverty and/or urban blight that is so common in American Cities. I know it's the only city I've ever felt comfortable about my mother roaming around anywhere at night.

Maybe there's something to be said about a bit of totalitarian rule?

Nazi Germany had the lowest crime rates in modern recorded history (if you don't count "government crimes"). When a government is able to act unilaterally with impunity your safety is still at risk, only the risks come from the government rather then street criminals. The real risk in Singapore is, what comes down the road? What happens if they implement laws that restrict free speech, or criticizing the government? What sort of position will people be in to oppose future government oppression when they live in a Totalitarian state that is completely controlled and monitored? At the end of the day, ceding your rights and freedoms to government officials with the idea that you can trust them to do the right thing is dangerously naive, and has never ended well.

Singapore promotes racial harmony, religious acceptance. They are opposed to drugs, corruption, and littering.

About the only place I would suggest they perhaps are behind in terms of what I would consider important modern civil liberties are their attitudes towards LGBT issues, and, honestly, they aren't particularly strict about it, even though it is technically illegal for homosexual men (but not women) to have sex with each other. Ironically, you probably run into more serious discrimination issues in certain states/towns in the United States than you would in Singapore. It's just something that's frowned upon, rather than very actively prosecuted - and there is a healthy gay rights movement here.

And, once again, I would much rather cede my rights and freedoms to a government that creates a safe, clean, and tolerant environment, where I, and my family can live in safety, than a government which, while protecting my rights/freedoms, created an environment that was unsafe, dirty, and intolerant, and in which I and my family were not safe to walk around in.

Singapore is a police state governed by a single party/family with very limited freedom of press (enforced via strict libel laws). Granted, the rulers are enlightened, and it is very much a stable "rule of law" country...it is also multi-cultural with necessary tolerance on religion. Hopefully Singapore can evolve into something a bit less authoritarian while keeping those qualities.

>And, once again, I would much rather cede my rights and freedoms to a government that creates a safe, clean, and tolerant environment, where I, and my family can live in safety, than a government which, while protecting my rights/freedoms, created an environment that was unsafe, dirty, and intolerant, and in which I and my family were not safe to walk around in.

That's like saying, "I'd rather stab myself in the eye with a pen then a pencil". My point is that nobody who values their dignity and freedom ever cedes their rights to any government, for any reason.

>About the only place I would suggest they perhaps are behind in terms of what I would consider important modern civil liberties are their attitudes towards LGBT issues

If you don't see a civil liberties issue with the government putting censors on you, your vehicle, and every street corner to monitor everything you do, everywhere you go, when you sleep, when you eat, and when you take a shit, and to regulate your personal behavior in each of these matters, as they claim it relates "to the public good" we have a very different definition of "civil liberties".

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” ― Samuel Adams

As Stanislav says, it's about whether the government is in the threat profile. All of human history, including in Asia, shows that the protective government eventually go corrupt. The more power they have then, the worse things will be for the citizens. This already happened more than once in Asia.

So, the question isn't no rights/freedoms for safety vs rights/freedoms without safety. What are you even talking about? Aren't you aware that there are countries with plenty freedom and low violence? And even areas of my country (U.S.) that are similar due to culture? You can keep free speech/expression, free press, due process, and so on without it turning into the Wild Wild West. At worst, people will be more honest and blunt with a bad guy here and there going free instead of innocent people being locked up.

Interesting write-up. More interesting is that the paper fits your description closely when I loaded it. Might read it a bit more often out of curiosity.

"Maybe there's something to be said about a bit of totalitarian rule?"

Or a combo of culture that cares with strong enforcement of good laws. I think that would suffice. Remember that there's pretty safe democracies without totalitarianism.

That last two examples both talk about the same thing, which is that it's illegal for a religious organization to explicitly comment on public policy matters.

Of course, it doesn't at ALL stop them from organizing and spreading their perspectives – it's an open secret that gay sex is still technically illegal in Singapore because of the conservative Christians lobbying for it to remain.

It just forces the religious groups to be more subtle about their agendas, which I think is about as good as it gets, really.

I think that's dangerous. Religion is a valid player on the field of public policy and they should be free to comment. In a government by the people, if the people choose to put weight on religious advice or concerns, that's completely valid. They don't need to reason by an arbitrary governmental standard that excludes something they believe in.

Even the restrictions on political speech for religious organizations in the US are worrisome (they lose their tax exemption if they explicitly endorse a specific candidate or party in an election).

Hi there

My name is Bryan and I'm one of the co-founders of a local company Intraix. Our company has been selected to be one of the vendors and is involved in the HDB Smart Home Trials with a local Telco - M1. I am pretty sure I would be able to paint out perspectives from different spectrums of this conversation.

In term of data protection and ensuring security,

The agencies involved in the smart home trial did put in a lot of effort to ensure that all companies in the program complies to the [Personal Data Protection Act] (https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/legislation-and-guidelines/overview) with very stringent criteria to data handling passed down to all the vendors.

As a matter of fact, our system had to face penetration tests conducted by Ernst and Young, a big 4 Auditing Firm before we can even get past the initial gates of entrance. I’m not saying that these measures are perfect but I believe the agencies, especially the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) is really serious about data privacy.

> As a matter of fact, our system had to face penetration tests conducted by Ernst and Young, a big 4 Auditing Firm

Auditing is not about security. It's about checking if proper procedures are in place, separation of duties, there's "access control", etc.

One thing it'll miss out on is the security of the system. You say that they performed penetration tests, but IMO saying that E&Y performed it makes me doubt the security.

FWIW, company I work for also has the big auditing firms (all of them) come along and perform audits.

>As a matter of fact, our system had to face penetration tests conducted by Ernst and Young, a big 4 Auditing Firm

I really can't tell whether this is serious or just Poe's law in action.

>allows the government to monitor ... the precise movement of every locally registered vehicle.

Okay, wow. But..

>The project appears to be popular in Singapore, where faith in the government is high and citizens have accepted limits on behavior, including restrictions on public speech and the press, in return for a more efficient state.

Now it is clear that this article is deeply biased, or maybe just ignorant. I lived in Singapore for several years and am still closely in touch with my community there. I have never heard a single Singaporean show strong confidence or trust in their government, and the lack of free speech is not insignificant to many.

I'm sure several Singaporeans will show up here to tell me I'm mistaken, but the reality is that there is strong suspicion among many as to the motives of the government, but most can't say too much about it publicly because of the punishment imposed.

"Punishment" seems a bit of a stretch. My understanding is that you're referring to civil defamation suits brought to court by SG prime ministers, acting as individuals.

Perhaps that's a bit of legal smoke and mirrors, but it still seems far more above board than what goes on in plenty of other countries.

I would consider bankrupting a college kid because the PM doesn't approve of the questions he raises in his blog, to most definitely be "punishment."

I assume you're referring to Roy. Well Roy posted a few articles trying to say Singapore is expensive in comparison to England. It was so factually incorrect that I have no doubt that the stuff he wrote about PM Lee was also incorrect.

Roy Ngerng? He wasn't posting 'questions' to his blog - he was posting cringeworthy conspiracy theories that were provably false. Granted I don't think he should have been sued - that just legitimizes him and made him out to be a martyr, but he's most certainly guilty of the crimes he was charged with.

If you don't trust the official media, even independent blogs whom don't typically side with the government don't report on him favorably - eg. http://mothership.sg/2015/07/this-was-how-senior-counsel-dav...

'Who', not 'whom'. 'Who' is subjective or nominative case, 'whom' objective; the parallel is 'they' vs. 'them', or 'he' vs 'him'. You wouldn't say 'them don't typically side with the government'.

In general, if you're not familiar and comfortable with the grammatical rules around pronoun case, don't use 'whom' at all, and stick with the more common pronouns whose correct usage you'll have learned by osmosis.

What's interesting is that the PM actually got involved with it personally, which had the ironic effect of making Roy seem more important than he should be. Can you imagine Obama, for example, getting upset about a college kid's blog? The idea that many in the West had was that Singapore PM just had nothing better to do than go after a kid's website. You have to admit it is rather strange behavior for a PM of a major country.

I can't imagine Obama suing somebody insignificant for defamation but Trump has a track record of doing just that...

I think you're right that politicians in the West generally refrain from doing so not least because they're concerned about looking ridiculous or overbearing. Legally they can though, and more minor politicians often do if the claim is sufficiently incendiary and well publicised.

Here's a British member of the House of Lords suing a politician's wife simply for implying something over Twitter http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lord-mcalpine-lib... And the UK of course also has a fine tradition of MPs losing their libel lawsuits and sometimes even ending up in jail for perjury as a result of the original claims turning out to be largely true.

I agree with you: a comparison between Lee and Trump makes a lot more sense than comparing the overall Singapore government with most other major democracies.

That Lee did this speaks to the general culture of Singapore why one-family-rule there needs to end and more trust in the citizens is needed to handle journalism independently.

> I have never heard a single Singaporean show strong confidence or trust in their government

In the last general election the ruling People's Action Party was voted in with a 70% popular vote.

> and the lack of free speech is not insignificant to many

It is not insignificant to many, but it's also not a major issue to most, again not at least if you look at the elections. I should mention at this point that I don't look upon the ruling party favorably. But these are the facts.

> but most can't say too much about it publicly because of the punishment imposed.

[citation needed]. The government doesn't take too kindly to certain types of speech, but critiques of its policies are generally not suppressed, and certainly not to the degree which you make it out to be (people fearing punishment for expression opinion out loud? Really?)

I'm going to say that I don't have too much doubts about the government's motives, but rather its competency - the government, like most governments doesn't have the best track records in terms of its IT infrastructure, and a breech into a system that collects that much data will be incredibly damaging.

> In the last general election the ruling People's Action Party was voted in with a 70% popular vote.

The lack of a significant opposition party kind of screams not-really-democratic to me. Even if all the voters had nearly identical views, you would expect there to be multiple parties competing over the few differences that do exist.

Your statement would have been true for every election other than the last. In the last election the opposition parties fielded candidates in all but one of the constituencies. The 70% popular vote in what is the most hotly contested election in recent history after the dismal 60% the ruling party got in the previous election is widely seen as an affirmation of the party's mandate.

In a real democracy, 60% is not dismal; it is a landslide victory.

That's right. Very high win ratios in any "vote" are usually due to reasons other than popular sentiment.

> I don't have too much doubts about the government's motives, but rather its competency

From what I've seen its a rocky grey area on both sides. In some aspects the government is competent which is a double edged sword depending on what they are trying to accomplish. If they run IT like they run their post, expect total disaster.

I don't think it is fair to discuss voting and democracy in the context of a nation that has been run by a single family for almost its entire history. A family, incidentally, that is profiting handsomely from the policies it imposes on its citizens.

Your first sentence is valid. I wished the opposition was better, so that we have real representation. The current opposition parties are fragmented, and worse, seem very reactionary. Unfortunately with Singapore's aging population it is unlikely any party will try to appeal to voters in my demography.

The second sentence however, is unfounded and uncalled for. The Lee's may be many things - harsh, autocratic even - but their integrity has never been called into question. Given their track record (the current PM Lee Hsien Long is a Senior Wrangler - "the greatest intellectual achievement attainable in Britain") one could very well imagine them being the CEO of a large multinational, which would be far more profitable than running a country and bending its policy to line their pocket.

I strongly disagree with your second paragraph, as well as the sensationalism you attribute to the quoted phrase, which adds no meaningful argument to the discussion. The history of Singapore's leading officials showcases nepotism at every turn of policy and appointment. There are reasons why most other advanced nations have term limits for leaders: it leads to a less corrupt society.

Singapore follows the British Westminister parliamentary system, which places no term limit on the Prime Minister. That is true for most other countries that follows the same system, like Australia and Canada. None of those countries are run by nepotistic dynasties. I don't think the lack of a term limit necessarily leads to more corruption.

My quote was simply to point out the absurdity of getting yourself elected the head of a country - one that prides itself on being free from corruption - just so you can get rich from it. Both Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kwuan Yew are very capable people who no doubt would be far richer had they applied themselves to the private sector rather than public.

"My quote was simply to point out the absurdity of getting yourself elected the head of a country - one that prides itself on being free from corruption - just so you can get rich from it. Both Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Kwuan Yew are very capable people who no doubt would be far richer had they applied themselves to the private sector rather than public."

That's not absurd at all. Our politicians in U.S. do it all the time while pretending the campaign contributions are just companies and individuals supporting our political system. Many private sector people have also gone into politics or government positions for the image and power. Running an entire country has historically attracted more tyrants than true, humble servants of their citizens.

In this case, it's even more obvious something is up. The country's turn-around started with a revolution of sorts by dissenters who took control of the government. It's turned into an economic powerhouse with the culture put in place but mostly in terms of cheap labor, etc. The problem is that the party cemented this into place by taking control of the media, filling schools with propaganda, blocking rights to dissent, and jailing/torturing dissenters that might cause next revolution (or even evolution).

A leader that uses legal and police might to force everything in one permanent direction where the many benefit a rich and powerful few, some local & some foreign, is almost by definition at tyrant. He's highly likely to be on a power trip. Otherwise, he should pass laws protecting speech and press freedom with a strong, independent press allowed. Keep other stuff the same for now but let new ideas percolate into system to improve it.

So, Loong and Yew are more likely to be tyrants oppressing a people than innovators continuing to protect them. No term limit is a natural extension of that. :)

This is possibly one of the funniest things I've read on the Internet today.

You're absolutely right. By the sound of it they could be tyrants on power trips. On the other hand I think the world would be a much better place if all tyrants on power trips lifted their countries out poverty, creating one of the most educated, cosmopolitan and diverse populations in the world, all within the space of two generations.

"On the other hand I think the world would be a much better place if all tyrants on power trips lifted their countries out poverty, creating one of the most educated, cosmopolitan and diverse populations in the world, all within the space of two generations."

I think more tyrants should do that. Yet again, you people could use qualifiers because the propaganda seeps through.

" countries out poverty"

Many are still in poverty working long hours making almost nothing with little to show. At least the business owners and foreign investors are making money on their efforts. It's not Africa poverty but in America we still call it poverty. Such people are measured to live shorter, less healthy, and less happy lives.

"most educated"

How much education do you get in history and critical thinking? Do they teach you to spot logical flaws and propaganda like our colleges often do? Do you apply that to the media and governments claims? Did you learn about places in the world that have good amount of safety and prosperity without draconian restrictions on their people? Did you actively debate among yourselves in government class every hot, political issue and other system of government to determine where you wanted your country to be in 10-20 years?

Or did they just teach you language, science, math, tech, some literature, and how to apply those for your government or commercial employers? I'm genuinely curious as oppressive regimes limit education to focus on harmless stuff to limit dissent and I have little information on Singaporean education.

"diverse populations "

Diverse in terms of beliefs, politics, and economic strategies? Or just ethnically? Our strengths in the U.S. come from the former. The latter is insignificant as it doesn't directly contribute to anything. Our goal there is just reducing discrimination in hiring or justice. Real issues here.

"all within the space of two generations."

Singaporean's unique focus, work ethic, and belief in their country are things I've always given them credit for. Admirable and a great turn-around. Now, they're potential liabilities that are being used by elites in government and industry to exploit them. Time to learn new character traits and ideas for the nation to see where the great ones will take it next. :)

This is spot-on.

This is... I can't even. The lack of quantifiers is because I'm on a phone, and your claims are extreme. I'm not going to dignify all of them with a respond - a lot of the claims are hyperbolical and ridiculous.

> How much education do you get in history and critical thinking? Do they teach you to spot logical flaws and propaganda like our colleges often do? Do you apply that to the media and governments claims?

Yes. Yes to all of the questions you asked. Yes we do learn history and critical thinking in school. I know Operation Coldstore and Operation Spectrum. I know of the PAP's sordid history with the Barisan Sosialis. I don't trust the Straits Times, and frequently look for alternative viewpoints online. There is a large and vibrant blogging scene here, and netizens are more frequently than not critical of the government.

> Did you learn about places in the world that have good amount of safety and prosperity without draconian restrictions on their people?

Yes, and there are not many. People in the US gives up more freedom than they think, and its history is far from being clean. The UK has libel laws that are not entirely unlike Singapore's, just to pick a few broad examples.

Singapore is not without flaws - gay rights, a misguided focus on the nuclear family and an almost cult-like focus on drugs as social vice. The lack of representation in politics, and increasingly xenophobic towards immigration. The poor work-life balance, income inequality, and lack of support for the poorest. There's a lot of things that are wrong with Singapore - you don't have to make shit up.

From one Singaporean to another, thanks for doing the good work.

I'd like to say that, by and large, most Singaporeans are concerned with economic and comfort issues. Cost of living, high home prices, wages depressed by foreign labour. These are the main issues that drive election results.

After the 60% outcome in the 2011 election, the ruling party was shocked into a social-welfare response that resulted in a landslide 70% outcome in the 2015 elections. Opposition politicians, stung by this rejection, decried Singaporeans' general lack of interest in their hobby-horse topics.

But the majority of the population really does think things have gotten better. You could say this is the "tyranny of the majority", because they're not interested in many of the topics that concern the minority. (Furthermore, the ruling party moved in the direction of opposition proposals for greater social welfare, giving the opposition less ground to stand on.)

There's a great breadth of alternative viewpoints online: activists, anti-PAP people, and so forth. The minority view here is alive and well, even getting to the point of rabid exaggeration (e.g. Roy Ngerng).

Ultimately, the objections to the Singapore system lie mostly in differences in principles. Is the current tradeoff of somewhat limited rights and good governance acceptable? To a large majority, it is. Is there a risk of a future government becoming abusive? Yes, but it's still remote in most Singaporeans' minds.

I hope it's clear that, while Singaporeans complain about governmental mismanagement, they're mostly not asking for additional freedoms (like what some posters might think). They're asking for better governance and greater fairness in treatment.

edit: In response to @nickpsecurity, I'd say the reason most Singaporeans don't complain publicly is, we really don't think the problems are as big as others think. @mediumdeviation and @visakanv here are clearly liberal in outlook, but they view the current ruling party positively on the whole. Their views really do reflect the majority of the younger, more educated/travelled crowd in Singapore (which isn't the only group that matters, of course).

"In response to @nickpsecurity, I'd say the reason most Singaporeans don't complain publicly is, we really don't think the problems are as big as others think. "

I'm considering that. Just gotta get more data and it's hard to come by if it's critical as I said to mediumdeviation. Reason I'm considering it already is this...

"they're mostly not asking for additional freedoms (like what some posters might think). They're asking for better governance and greater fairness in treatment."

You're the second one to tell me that. The other explained that Singaporean culture inherently trusted the government more seeing them as a caretaker of sorts. So, the question is how the trusted government should provide for them. That they weren't as worried about the long-term consequences of putting that much trust and power into the government as they were its immediate actions.

Is this accurate?

> I'm considering that.

Thanks for being open to my viewpoint.

> "they're mostly not asking for additional freedoms (like what some posters might think). They're asking for better governance and greater fairness in treatment."

> You're the second one to tell me that. The other explained that Singaporean culture inherently trusted the government more seeing them as a caretaker of sorts. So, the question is how the trusted government should provide for them. That they weren't as worried about the long-term consequences of putting that much trust and power into the government as they were its immediate actions.

Hmm, yes. You could compare it to the old mandarin system. Top scholars are fast-tracked into civil service leadership, where they play increasingly large roles (and compete with each other), and from among them and a few outstanding outsiders, the party leadership selects its new generation. Policies and directions are debated within that leadership, with an eye to Singapore's future success.

This system was established early on by the PAP and maybe we Singaporeans don't expect it to produce abusive leaders in the future, since it hasn't so far (barring perhaps LKY, who's rightly controversial, but also set up the whole system).

When the ruling party does a bad job, voters tell it so by voting for the opposition, and the party addresses the issues - that's the ongoing dynamic, whether you label them "rulers" or "caretakers".

I think you can summarise how many Singaporeans think this way:

1. The PAP did a good job despite LKY's authoritarian approach and excesses in the earlier decades.

2. The current PAP leadership is quite acceptable and not oppressive (the top ministers like Tharman and even PM Lee can quite fairly be called excellent or visionary).

3. As long as the PAP continues to a) address criticisms from the populace, and b) deliver good governance and societal comfort, there's not much fear of a return to tight controls and clamping down on freedoms in the long term.

4. The strength of alternative viewpoints has grown steadily and doesn't look endangered; online criticism feeds into the main newspaper, where virtually all big issues show up in the end. The genie is out of the bottle, in that regard. Plus, youngsters are getting more liberal by the year, and gradually they'll become the ones running government and making up the PAP.

That's the summary of the view of one Singaporean among many. We'll see how long this "one-party experiment" will last.

"The lack of quantifiers is because I'm on a phone, and your claims are extreme. I'm not going to dignify all of them with a respond - a lot of the claims are hyperbolical and ridiculous."

Lol. First genuine, emotional response I've gotten out of one of you on a public site in years. Extreme? I've already made extreme claims elsewhere that were backed up by Singaporean eyewitnesses. I'm leaving extreme stuff out here. No, these are basic questions that I periodically ask but get no answers to. They're important given all the negative claims I've read and how corrupt police states focus on these categories. It's a canary that sounds the alarm. So, let's look at this.

re history

It's good you know about these things although they still won't release records on Coldstore, etc on your end. Gotta wonder what they'll say & how that will paint the regime. I'm sure you have an idea, though. Good to know the citizens are blogging different sides of things, some of which I read. Gotta ask how many times have movements against the regime in those blogging circles led to (a) a change of leadership or (b) a change of key laws leadership pushed? Does this happen a few times a year? Once a year? One a few years? It's a measure of whether your blogging and such is as effective as alternative press with individual freedoms to act on that.

"People in the US gives up more freedom than they think, and its history is far from being clean. The UK has libel laws that are not entirely unlike Singapore's, just to pick a few broad examples."

You actually picked bad examples. Post-9/11, U.S. gave up a lot of freedom Singapore-style in exchange for safety. Except fake safety in U.S. case given the threat. A small percentage run into police-state style behavior. Most of us have so much freedom that we can publicly mock or slander Presidents without harm on major news. Colbert did it to President in person. We regularly get evidence against us tossed out if it's obtained illegally. And so on.

Britain, I'll say simply, is a police state the U.S. is trying to imitate. So, your comparison showing a police state (Singapore) to be good was another police state and a free country trying to be one. Try active democracy like Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, or Switzerland. Low violence, despite two having guns for sure, with government providing for their people, good living standards, and them having plenty freedom. They're a better comparison since their people's culture is to actually give a shit about each other & the country like you Singaporeans do and U.S./U.K. don't (sighs). They just do it as democracies.

"Singapore is not without flaws"

BOOM! Great paragraph! Just what I was looking for. Any critique of Singapore results in half a dozen to dozens of nearly identical claims about how safe and great it is without details or references. Then, stuff like "everyone else, like America, is corrupt and gets you murdered" ignoring any details to the contrary. All of them say the same things like a group refrain. That worries me by itself.

Anyway, I have to fight to get honest admissions of problems from Singaporeans for whatever reason. Yes, that paragraph covers most of what I've heard in private conversations from Singaporeans. Bravo! Impressed with your honesty. I'll add that to my list which also has your country's good traits that you all are happy to talk about. It's just this other stuff is hard to get and I prefer to hear the problems directly from Singaporeans. I appreciate your help in getting the big picture more clearly in my head. Extra pieces that I'll try to corroborate with others.

People keep on forgetting about scale. Places like Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, are able to prosper despite being autocratic or semi-autocratic because they're cities. Similarly, New York has had relatively authoritarian mayors (by U.S. standards) in the past and improved because of it. But it's a far cry to say that such a national (or even major provincial) ruler would have the same sort of results. And the price to pay would be tyranny.

> Loong and Yew

Chinese names put the last name first. It's either Messrs Lee & Lee, or Kuan Yew and Hsien Loong if you want to be familiar.

Alright. Hopefully I'll remember. :)

>A family, incidentally, that is profiting handsomely from the policies it imposes on its citizens.

Singapore has a higher GDP per capita than the United States, and every Western country for that matter. Poverty is rare and the tax burder is low. Why would I resent the Prime Minister's pay if the country is prosperous and the government is efficient and effective?

Let's chat again after you've gone to live there for awhile. What looks good on paper doesn't necessarily means it is what you expect.

Singapore has a very impressive GDP per capita, but it is massively skewed by external investment (with money that often flows straight back out of the country again), construction and being a major regional hub.

To say Singapore has a higher GDP than any Western country isn't quite a fair comparison. For contrast, the GDP per capita in London (pop 8.5M) which benefits similarly form being a regional hub has a GDP per capita of $73k [1] vs about $55k in Singapore (pop 5.4M) [2].

For a different picture try looking at a figure that looks at household wealth, e.g. household final consumption per capital. These numbers are less skewed by external investment and look at the real purchasing power of average people.

On these figures (US$) taken from: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.CON.PRVT.PC.KD

Singapore: $12,355 Switzerland $33,284 USA: $31,469 UK: $25,828 Germany: $21,769

By this metric Singapore is far behind most Western economies and is in the same basket as Spain, Greece, Slovenia, Portugal.

Don't get me wrong, the progress that has been made in Singapore is amazing. I just think it is far too easy to be dazzled by high GDP figures, and miss out on the bigger picture.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_... [2] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

>By this metric Singapore is far behind most Western economies and is in the same basket as Spain, Greece, Slovenia, Portugal.

Thanks for showing me the numbers in a different light. Updated.

>I just think it is far too easy to be dazzled by high GDP figures, and miss out on the bigger picture.

This is true, but then again, part of the bigger picture is the country is run by very visibly smart and competent people.

I think they need to monitor vehicles to charge for road usage. There's already an ERP system but these sensors will probably allow finer granularity. So, it's a valid use case.

However, I'm not saying it's all good or all bad. It's what it is and people who manage to compromise the system may put the data treasure trove to some creative use and cause serious harm. This is the big elephant in the room.

There are plenty of ways to monitor traffic on roads than to follow individual, specific cars.

The funny thing about Singapore is that I know a lot of Malaysians who think very highly about the Singaporean Government but the Singaporeans that are know are usually much more critical.

> I have never heard a single Singaporean show strong confidence or trust in their government

This is oddly phrased. Have you ever heard a single Singaporean express the converse?

I sure have. Ask a taxi driver in Singapore some time, they will gladly vent until you arrive at your destination about how much they don't like the government. This was a guarantee for any cab ride in which it came up. It's possible they were only willing to talk to a foreigner, however. They might not be so loud on the subject to a fellow Singaporean if they don't know who the person is.

Out of all the criticisms of Singapore, the most mentioned is the lack of free speech/media. But if you have lived in Singapore for a while you will probably find that this is not the case. It does not even affect most people's life in a tiny bit (unless you are into politics). And certainly Singapore is not 1984 stuff. People are really happy here.

Based on my reading of some books from Lee Kuan Yew, the reason he did not allow total free media and speech was that he was very much concerned about the stability of the nation, and as such a small country, Singapore really can't afford any civil conflicts (it had suffered one before https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_race_riots_of_Singapore and recently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Little_India_riot)

Besides that, some of the "free speech" online are actually either falsified or in very explicit languages specifically targeted at raising culture hatred, and hatred towards foreign immigrants. They are not targeted at solving problems

Somehow, the reason that keeps people leaving Singapore is not the lack of free speech, but something else. Most of my foreign friends from University had left Singapore, either to US or China. For them, the biggest problem seems to be high living cost, no space for personal development and no job satisfaction. How to retain these talents may be a bigger issue here

One of the things I've noticed are the various tiers in how people migrate (those with the wherewithal to do so).

Village -> Urban location -> Metropolitan City.

Those unhappy in well developed Metropolitan cities are usually due to government policies, political trends, CoL, etc. They are likely to move across the country or to an entirely different developed nation (US, EU, etc).

Some return on seeing how policies are stacked against migrants, many endure to see the same cycle go on – They move for better education, kids move out for college, etc.

Humans are inherently migratory, meaningless borders keep us stuck at a particular place.

very good insight indeed

...unless you are into politics...

I have nothing against Singapore, but that's kind of the whole point of free speech -- the ability to discuss all ideas that can alter society.

I suppose a society where those in charge are all benevolent could get by without it for a long time, but eventually I would expect a disconnect between the perceptions of the government and the needs of the people that can scarcely be solved with free speech, but almost certainly not without it.

Since I'm just reasoning aboit generalizations, I'll ask, how does Singapore work around this problem?

I am not sure also. Singapore is not old enough currently to see any discontinuity between government's percetion and people's true needs. But I think "lack of free speech" is not the same as dictatorship. Singapore still allows multiple political party, and democratic elections. It is just that the PAP is too strong that no other party has the equaling power to win people's votes

I was in Singapore in 2015 and stumbled upon a gay pride rally. IIRC it was a group called _The Pink Dot_ and they had a park filled with hundreds of people wearing pink shirts. The pamphlets said this was legal for Singaporeans (non-residents could watch but were technically banned from participation :-P)

Things are changing there slowly. They do technically censor their Internet (it's illegal to view porn, but if you stumble on it without downloading it, that's legal...or something). I think they gave up on their porn filter years ago. Their level of censorship is way below the level of the UK!

With all that said, the nation is highly progressive in other areas. All the trains are fully automated, no drivers. They can run 24/7. Cars are exceedingly expensive. A permit for buying a car is done on a bidding system and the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) can run between $50k ~ $70k (that's not including the cost of the car or registration). This keeps pollution, smog and emissions down to a minimum. (The COEs are only good for 10 years. A used 5 year extension costs the same as a new car COE, so most ditch their cars after 10 years. It does create an insane amount of consumerism/waste though .. Singapore is the largest car exporter in the world).

I suggest visiting and spending two weeks there. The Adler Lunary Hostel is reall nice and central. It's a really interesting place.

This definitely makes sense. My dad worked in Singapore for a couple of years two decades ago, and he said back then "there just wasn't that much there" even though it was already an economic powerhouse. I had a great time there as a tourist during a one-day layover but I got the same impression, and I don't think I would have enjoyed more than a couple of days.

I'm having a hard time articulating my point but I think what I mean is that even as a megacity Singapore can feel somewhat small or shallow, compared to a city like Hong Kong for instance.

true indeed, to put it in most of my friends' way: "you can't make much money here"

> Singapore is not 1984 stuff. People are really happy here.

In "Nineteen-Eightyfour", there are very few discontents. Everybody else is thrilled by chocolate rations being increased or foaming at the mouth during the hate sessions. The whole point of impoverishing language and thought after all is to make people unable to even see the condition they're in, which comes after they ceased to be able to talk about it.

Since totalitarianism is about the extinguishing of humans as humans (beings that act and are unpredictable, instead of mere cogs which react predictably), there is really nothing to write about the core of it, which is basically necrotic tissue. The only remaining thoughts and actions (that deserve those titles) occur outside or at the fringe of it. Which is why the book is about the exception, people who are still persons, and their process of getting broken. Everybody else either got already broken, or was born broken. They don't need to be killed because they don't live to begin with.

This is not directed at you or Singapore, if anything I feel it applies more to the West, but just as a general thought: Just because you feel happy and safe doesn't have to mean you don't live in a dystopia, it might just mean you're not enough of a threat to it to have it uncloak for you, or that you are even are aligned with it's pathology, either by chance or by having been groomed. We should judge societies and people by how they treat the vulnerable and innocent, not how they treat us, is what I'm trying to say. Again, this is a general thought, I don't know jack about Singapore.

This type of system reinforces what William Gibson so vividly described in his essay, 'Disneyland with a Death Sentence' [1], published in Wired more than 20 years ago

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland_with_the_Death_Pe...

Whenever Singapore is mentioned, most commentators can only come up with the same three responses:

1. Chewing gum

2. Caning

3. William Gibson

Frankly, if I wanted Disneyland with the death sentence, I'd go to California.

I noticed the same type of response when Dubai is mentioned as well.

What responses would you like to see?

Recognition of merits that SG has, perhaps? Maybe there are some interesting differences about their approach. Does everywhere in the world have to have the same style of government?

So you are using the _diversity_ argument to argue in favour of Singapore? Really ?

Caning and hanging people for minor offenses? I'd gladly lose that, even at the cost of "reduced diversity of styles of government."

I thought differences of culture were something to be celebrated. Did I misunderstand?

Have you actually lived in Singapore? I don't know where you're from. I'm from the USA. And while I don't like everything SG does, having lived there I see trade offs.

In the USA I get freedom of speech (+). In exchange I get mugged on the streets, cars stolen, cars broken into, poverty all over, always having to be on my guard.

Then I go live in Singapore where I hate that the internet is filtered, there's no porn, but in exchange I always feel safe. Safe to walk pretty much anywhere at any time day or night. It's a nice feeling. For many people who experience it for a few years it's hard to go back to a place where you always have to look over your shoulder like SF, LA, NYC.

The tradeoff isn't worth it for me.

I wouldn't feel _morally_ safe knowing the state is using such draconian measures to make me feel physically safe—even less so to ensure that my property is safe.

If somebody vandalized my car and got some kind of caning or other torture based sentence I'd pray the court for leniency.

He damaged a replaceable physical object and the state proposes to injure and traumatize him?

I couldn't live in a place that protects my property and buys my physical safety at that cost.

You say that but have you actually experienced it? That's my point. I never thought the USA was an unsafe place. Until spent 7 years in Japan and 6 months in SG. Before I lived in those places I would have had your opinion. Now that I have I can't live in the USA anymore. It feels like a shit hole 3rd world country.

Intellectually knowing the trade offs is different than actually feeling and experiencing them. I'm sure you believe that even after experiencing a life of feeling safe at all times you'd still choose unsafe but freer but I suspect you're discounting the effect it would have on you to actually have the experience. I'm not saying you'd make my choice but I am saying you'd at least see the trade off in a different light.

Being free from certain worries is also a form of freedom. You're free to criticize the government. I'm free to let my 8yr kids explore the city without worrying they'll come to any harm

Nope I haven't experienced it. I don't feel unsafe in the US either, in the places you named, at all hours of the night.

I'm not trying to be glib, but if I had to go out and personally experience everything someone recommends, it might take me a long time.

I'm glad you feel safe there, I just wouldn't want it for myself on principle.

It's okay if it's not worth it for you, but do you think there could be any significantly sized group of people that it could be worth it for? If so, perhaps there is good reason for Singapore to have this approach. The alternative is trying to force everyone in the world to live the way you want to.

You don't have to want to live in Singapore, but you should accept that other people might want to.

But did they really chose to live that way or did the government institutions just kind of lag behind the economic progress?

Economic progress excuses many sins. You see a similar thing in China. Human rights abuses are frequently minimized as long as there is economic growth.

Many cultures used torture and hanging and all sorts of extreme and cruel punishments. Even the paragons of peaceful resistance did: the Tibetans.

But many cultures chose to outgrow such practices.

I'd argue that:

1) The Singapore people never _chose_ to live this way, that it's an accident of history, and that economic growth keeps most people from complaining about it.

2) given the control of the press and the draconian government they couldn't easily chose to live differently now.

We should be wary of imitating them, because it would be very hard to dismantle a system like that once it has been installed.

I live in a murder capital that's in top 10 of violent crime. I rarely deal with a mugging and basic methods let me avoid it. Pre-9/11, I didn't worry about secret police putting the FBI on me for being a dissenter or CIA kidnapping me at an airport then torturing me. That kind of stuff happens here now but very limited. Also happens in Singapore with zero protections, accountability, or even media reporting far as people tell me.

We're over here doing all kinds of unpopular things to try to get us privacy, better healthcare, better this, better that. We have the opportunity with 90+% too apathetic to join. (sighs) Over there, you only have the opportunity to do what their regime of specific ideology allows you to do. If you don't, they will do more than give you outvote you, cite you, or try you in court. You won't stand a chance.

Leads me to believe you must live a very predictable, non-threatening-to-regime lifestyle to be safe over there. Activists I know in Singapore do not feel safe. :)

In Germany I get unfiltered internet, freedom of speech and still always feel safe. It doesn't really have to be a choice between freedom and safety, both together is possible.

According to Wikipedia, in 2010 almost 6 million crimes were committed in Germany. Don't know the equivalent number per capita in Singapore, but I'm guessing it's a lot lower. In fact ( if we exclude homicides ), I believe that's an even worse crime rate than US

The total number of reported crimes means nothing, there might just be a whole lot of minor crimes reported. It's mainly the number of crimes with your personal safety affected which make you feel unsafe.

You're missing a few big ones. Like, a murder sentence is more lenient in Singapore than a drug trafficking sentence, which is death by hanging. Many murderers go free in Singapore after a few years of prison, while someone caught with a a backpack of pot can be killed legally, and someone with only a couple grams of marijuana can spend 10 years in jail.

As ridiculous as death sentences for drug trafficking are, they're in place and [far more] frequently carried out in all the surrounding South East Asian states too. I'm not sure where you've got the idea Singapore habitually lets murderers free either; judges only got the discretion to impose life imprisonment instead of the death penalty for murder in 2012/

This guy set his wife on fire, and she died, and the courts gave him a 20-yr sentence which was considered an "excessive punishment" http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/man-admits-killing-ex-...

A cursory search reveals that he was charged of "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" on the grounds that he was "suffering from an abnormality of mind ... which substantially impaired his mental responsibility for the commission of the offence", and his appeal against the 20 year sentence failed.

http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/...

So yes, Singapore doesn't impose the same mandatory life or death sentences on the mentally ill, but I'm not sure that helps your argument...

I think you will find in general that drug offenders are typically sentenced more strictly than violent offenders in Singapore. That's my main argument, sorry for the tangent.

Most of the surrounding states are in no danger of being mistaken for a first world country, while Singapore often is.

If you're going to talk about what is and isn't a first world country, please define the term. There isn't some consensus the world has reached on what it means.

Good point. The terms 'first/second/third world' are rough terms that came from the cold war. There is a rough consensus that first world are countries that aligned with the capitalist western axis, second world refers to former communist-socialist countries, and the third describes developing countries (Africa, Asia and LatAm).

Except California doesn't execute people any longer. It has been a decade since the last and I wouldn't hold your breath on the next. Singapore has executed people in that time.

There are a few more responses I commonly see about Singapore:

4. Political dictatorship

5. Lack of freedom of speech

6. Lack of press freedom, government controlled press

7. Capital punishment, including executions by hanging

8. Socially very regressive

What about Florida?

Or does that not count because it's "Disney World"?

Actually, whenever Singapore is mentioned, you see that from the ignorant plus more thorough responses citing brutal oppression with actual case studies that floats to the top. Just like now. Then you see a bunch of Singapore promoters, sometimes in Singapore, that show up to start talking about minor points, safe streets, and how they have plenty of mindless activities like restaurants and gyms. They will always ignore the worst stuff or act like it doesn't matter.

Whereas I know dissenters in Singapore tip-toeing around trying to improve the status quo. They talk of how people nearly drop dead during the mandatory P.E.. They tell me the propaganda they hear all year about Singapore in school and how seeing other country's strengths contradicts it as adults. Many end up zealots, though, for whatever regime changed everything a long time ago. They mention they have no safety against government and they fear disappearing if they threaten their regime. They usually know plenty instances of corruption but media seems to suppress it. All of them have been in menial jobs working unpaid overtime with deceitful salespeople and such like we see in America. Worst, there seems to be little innovation due to follow the leader mentality outside of a few startup havens.

All in all, sounds like a terrible place to live for people with bright minds, wanting to purse diverse activities that are meaningful, or trying to improve country's future. I never read Gibson but have experienced that kind of thing in U.S.'s most corrupt & high-police areas. Always trying to lock-up minorities or dissenters ("trouble-makers") for "greater good." Funny thing is, I actually live in and around a murder capital here with more safety and control over my life thanks to my few rights than my Singaporean friends have. Security against thugs is so easy I've taught it in hour seminars. Securing your future against corrupt governments with unlimited power, widespread surveillance, and media complicity is impossible.

I wouldn't operate in Singapore unless I cut a protection deal with the government to sort of let me be me without consequences. Not sure of odds of that. So, I stay out of it despite its safety, hardworking people, and cheap labor that corporations love.

To put things in perspective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Singapore

I don't think this article is about how perfect Singapore is, if you try hard enough I am sure you will find ridiculous rules, laws and human rights violations any country has.

You are right, however Singapore is a special case. It has grown from third-word status to extraordinary economic impact in just 50 years, a trajectory not seen by nearly any other society in history, but its growth has been very unbalanced. It's primary growing pain has been a disconnect between its economic success and old-world policies that are no better than many other still-developing countries and failed to grow alongside its economy. It caught up quickly to the rest of the developed world in economic ways, but still lags deeply far behind in many other ways.

It's also a special case in being a Chinese enclave surrounded by much lager Muslim countries: Malaysia and Indonesia. How do you think it compares with those?

> It caught up quickly to the rest of the developed world in economic ways

I think this is the only reason people praise Singapore. It's not how clean or orderly it is, it's how rich it is.

If it was dirt poor and still horse-whipping people for farting or whatever they do, it would have few people arguing in its favour.

This is a very culturally biased statement. Our current western culture is very 'progressive' (in the ideological sense), and we generally view such an approach as a sign of 'lagging behind'. If you ask a Singaporean, though, their priors are likely to be different and they may disagree - and probably not because they have failed to comprehend or 'catch up with' our western mindset and its underpinnings. I don't generally consider myself a relativist, but I find this sort of approach to these issues to be overly simplistic.

In rereading my comment, you are right that my wording is a bit unfair. But my general feeling is that human civilization generally does make progress in ways beyond the economic, and most societies grow in a balance way across the spectrum, while Singapore has leapt dramatically in one way while not changing in another, and this has created (in my opinion) some contradictions within its society, not the least of which is lack of free speech. It may seem trivial on the surface that someone can't boldly criticize a government policy, but this has effects that go much deeper than the actual "problem" such a policy tries to address.

To put things into perspective, for all it's cultural conservatism and archaic laws which Singapore's founding father was quite insistent shouldn't be enforced, I'd feel much safer being openly gay in Singapore than most parts of many American states.

This sounds like a solution in search of a problem, just with the budget and resources of an entire government. It sounds like someone made a contract for some new surveillance devices and are now looking for ways to deploy them.

Yet the government also says it isn’t certain what kinds of applications might be possible once the system is built, and hasn’t decided where all the sensors will be located

So they're building something and then they're going to find a use for it.

Or there is a use in mind, but announcing it all at once would yield more backlash than they're aiming for.

I'm supportive of high levels of surveillance in public areas, but recognise that introducing it more gradually makes it more palatable.

How Singapore prevented the formation of racial enclaves and promote ethnic integration?

http://qz.com/436056/singapores-forced-housing-integration-f...

Singapore had race riots in the 70s due to the formation of ghettos. I think their housing policy is a reasonable response. I like how they don't care about being political correct to conform to western ideals, but do what works.

Many are likely to hail this as some sort of ushering in of a new age while simultaneously preach about the FBI cracking an iPhone - interesting to see where this ends up.

>> Singapore is deploying an undetermined number of sensors and cameras across the island city-state that will allow the government to monitor everything from the cleanliness of public spaces to the density of crowds and the precise movement of every locally registered vehicle.

>> It is a sweeping effort that will likely touch the lives of every single resident in the country, in ways that aren’t completely clear since many potential applications may not be known until the system is fully implemented.

Wow. Will be good to see where this goes with so much uncertainty with what they will do with the data.

>> The government also plans to share data, in some cases, with the private sector.

Ouch!

We're in 2016 and Ghost in the shell story take place around 2030. Sound like Masamune Shirow's book will be the George Orwell's book of our generation...

Alternate title/tl;dr: "Singapore Is Taking the ‘Smart City’ to a Whole New Orwellian Level"

There's plenty of places that are more private. What's wrong with having a few where you trade privacy for some potential upsides? So long as people are free to leave if they please, I think it's good to have varied options.

Of course it's frightening. But it's frightening in an exhilarating sort of way. I am sure that most of us would love to get our hands on that type of data, and the tools to work with it. And the benefits can't be denied - it's not mainly for security, which is the main argument for selling surveillance to us here in the west, but optimization. Of everything (security, too, of course, as mentioned in the article- but terrorists are only tangential). And it's a trade-off - if it's worth it remains to be seen, and the answer will probably always depend on who you ask. Personally I haven't really made up my mind yet.

I can think of a Ghost in a Shell future in Singapore.

I just got back from a 2 week business trip to Singapore, and I loved it there. Everyone was friendly and helpful (if they spoke English) and the vibe of the place was good. People seemed really proud of their country and they should be given how far they have come since their area was horribly affected by the Second World War.

Public data like that for mass transit is available for use so perhaps some of this new data will also be publicly available?

My impression of Singapore was so positive that I could easily live there.

Singapore is weird to me. It is fostering a multiethnic society and put this even above the freedom of speech and the ruling party officially rejects the idea of a liberal democracy, with quotes from its leaders which sounds like libel for the people of Singapore.

Also, the PAP is ruling the country for almost 60 years now, the first prime minister was in office from 1957 to 1991. Usually this goes with corruption, maybe not the open and direct one but basically if you want to change anything in the country you have to talk with the PAP. You could call it a monopoly or corruption or both. Especially since there is no real opposition. I think one president got elected simply because no other candidate was considered eligible for the office. (I'm still wondering how he could have become president, if he agreed to this system)

And I don't even have the space to talk about the capital punishment in Singapore, which seemed to me like that life is worthless there.

And such a regime gets access to a vast array of sensors throughout the country. With nothing stopping or controlling it. For example, what could such a system do if you start a public protest or a strike or a rally for something.

it's 1984 in the disguise of "smart city". it's much easier for the gov of Singapore to collect fines by ticketing smoking violations (smoke detector) or littering (motion detector), with cross-referencing your mobile phone meta-data. This could even be done by a bot, without a policeman even presented. it's much easier for the Sg gov to monitor opposition parties for illegal assembly of more than five people under its penal code. if someone tried to argue that giving away partial freedom to feel safe at night, try solitary confinement.

Looks like the perfect setup for big brother. Not that they are not already on that road. I am all for benevolent dictatorships, it's when they turn non-benevolent that I am worried about.

>The centerpiece of Singapore’s effort is a kind of digital crystal ball that acts as a superpowered, X-ray version of Google Maps.

Does this not remind you of Sauron's Eye?

It only reminds me of Monaco, which does essentially the same thing while no Westerners are bothered by its level of surveillance. But when it's about Asians though, everybody goes bonkers.

Monaco doesn't hang you for a bit of weed.

So what is all that data good for? The article even says it's a "build it and they will come" project.

It would be interesting to have a "smart city" project which simply mounted a camera ring on city vehicles and inspected the visible infrastructure daily. Pothole? Missing sign? Puddle that doesn't drain? Street light out? Graffiti? Recognize those and generate trouble tickets for them.

Singapore's Open Data Portal: http://data.gov.sg/

Singaporean here. Some thoughts:

1. The people I talk to don't really care about privacy in the abstract sense. I mean, nobody wants to be filmed or recorded, but I think we all assume that the metadata is everywhere. We more or less assume that even the American NSA probably has data about everything we do. Eh. It's a small, tiny cramped city. You can't hide anything.

2. In my opinion, it's totally possible to criticize the Governement and its policies. I've done this multiple times, and have friends who have done the same. (My Facebook cover photo is still a picture of me onstage at a protest, lol: http://www.facebook.com/visakanv/) It doesn't get a lot of attention from the international public because we take the trouble to be nuanced about the points that we make (rather than accuse the Government of being corrupt, which is typically gets what people sued.) Singapore's satire muscle is still a little weak, I'll give you that. Give us some time, we've only been a nation for 50 years. (You know who it DOES get attention from, though? The Government! The civil service! They're actually serious about making Singapore a better place for their grandkids, and they're eager to listen to our perspectives.)

3. Re "Singapore is ridiculously expensive" – eh. I'm an average marketing guy at a software company. I earn enough to pay for the HDB that I own, support my wife and two cats, and have some nice things on top of that. It's not that ridiculous. I'm pretty comfortable.

4. Neuromancer was a pretty nice read. Disneyland with the Death Penalty, on the other hand, is an odd bit of fetishizing. I wish we could read American authors write about how dystopian AMERICA is, where the tree of liberty has to be watered from time to time with the blood of innocent children, and where black parents have to teach their children to be afraid of the police. (Neither of those things would be tolerated in Singapore– and I'm not talking about the State, I'm talking about the PEOPLE.)

5. The state is made up of people. Of civil servants, who are our brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles. Singapore is a tiny-ass place. In that regard, I get the sense that Singapore can't ever be as 'dystopian' as the US or China. I'm not being very articulate here, but consider Nassim Taleb's argument in Antifragile about cities vs countries. Singapore is a city.

6. Fun fact: The PM's sister made a bunch of accusations a while ago. She wasn't suppressed or arrested or anything of the sort. People joked that "only when your sister accuses you of abusing your power do you realize that there's a way of solving conflicts without suing for defamation" – http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/lee-wei-ling-s...

Singaporeans aren't glassy-eyed automatons who tremble with feat under the subjugation of their state. We're people who laugh and cry and joke and bitch and get by. We have things that we're proud of, and things that we're critical of. Somehow that never seems to come through in the comments sections discussing these articles. It's either "Singapore is horribly oppressive" or "Singapore is pristine and clean, tho kinda sterile" or some shit like that. JFC. Sigh.

No more electronic road pricing gantries, every car's position will be tracked via gps in real time

No more electronic road pricing gantries, every car's position will be tracked via gps

Singapore is a country. Why is not taking a 'Smart Country' approach?

G. Orwell must be proud..

sure as long as you dont mind total government censorship of all media

even though i'm a singaporean here, i have no comments about that article

it's just...meh

I'm not singaporean, but do live in Singapore. If I was in any other country I would probably be bothered, but in Singapore I just don't care. I feel safe here, love this country. But I have noticed over the last 4 years, a lot more tourists are littering, so if this helps prevent it, I'm all for it.

> a lot more tourists are littering, so if this helps prevent it, I'm all for it.

This sounds like a great beginning to a dystopian novel. We who gave up our privacy and control over our life to the All Seeing All Knowing State to stop tourists from littering.

You ever been to Singapore?

He's probably not been to Singapore, or not very often.

Like most people, he's probably not been to Singapore's close neighbors -- such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand -- and doesn't realize how much more corrupt things could be ;-)

I have. A beer was really expensive, but a return flight to Manila for a weekend drinking bender was cheaper overall than staying in Singapore to drink.

I was a little disturbed by how prevalent domestic servants were, but they were almost entirely not Singaporean citizens. I suppose it's more a mark of how poor the surrounding countries are rather than anything wrong with Singapore.

I pretty much don't drink anymore since moving here. But it does help. Binge drinking in Australia/NZ is out of control. :/

Same here but its Sweden ;)

You keep asking that from people who would have a huge target on their backs in a surveillance state. Quite an unreasonable expectation. Try this: "Have you had in-depth discussions on life in Singapore with people who live there now or spent significant time there? And did you listen to claims of its proponents and detractors?"

That's what I did and do. The proponents always say the exact same stuff in a refrain and ignore anything critical. The detractors usually have something new and creepy to say each year that comes from Singaporean press themselves on top of the other stuff I mostly ignore. Hence, my negative outlook on that country for certain types of people with positive outlook for other types of people.

I'm not going there unless someone can assure my safety while I blog about the threat their government poses to its citizens. I'm a civil liberties and privacy activist who reports on and fights international corruption. So, I definitely will say anything I see good or bad. Will I get locked up, tortured, kicked out? Or will they leave me alone? I can't know since transparency is a lie in that place. So, I can't ever answer yes to your question about visiting.

I can and do listen to people that live there. I find what they say varies depending on whether it's public or encrypted. I recall that being first, disturbing sign.

It's amazing how so many of your posts get downvoted without replies, but BS like binge drinking being out of control in Australia, that's fine.

Has anyone ever been to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia? No? So how come anyone has an opinion on it? Did all the Americans who supported attacking Iraq spend a few years living there? And how can we know anything about Islamic fundamentalism without having being in such a group? How can we know some nordic nations are actually progressive and sane in some of their laws and attitudes? Who lived there? 0.001% of the people who talk about this and other things where the complaint of not having experienced it first-hand never ever comes up, that's who.

So how is this anything but an ad-hominem and a distraction? Having lived there doesn't necessarily involve paying lots of attention, after all. It's a double edged sword, too: Prejudice and hearsay and so on are one thing, but selection bias is another. You could say the only people who ever lived in Singapore are the people who either born there or who weren't too appalled by what they know about it to move there. Franz Beckenbauer "didn't see any shackled slaves" in Qatar, so it's a-okay to him. Does this say something nice about Qatar, or something rather nasty about Franz Beckenbauer? And who is more likely to do a lot of business there, someone like him or someone entirely unlike him? So, does that make him an expert, or rather the one person who can't see what is written on his forehead? I'm not saying Singapore is Qatar, just like I'm not saying it's Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. But it works for everything. I don't have to gamble to have an opinion of gambling, and I don't have to play soccer or dance ballet to know it takes a lot of skill.

I might as well ask questions like "At which age did you begin to ponder totalitarianism, which authors did you read on it, and what are things you come in contact with daily you would say are somewhat or very aligned with it in spirit?" or "Do you have a rough idea where you are on spectrums such as narcissism or sociopathy, and what your IQ is?", or "Does the following quote [badly translated from the German edition by me] remind you of anything in the technology sector, and stuff you can read all the time on the interwebs, if you don't hear it in real life? (that is, pseudo-scientific claims of why things are how they are, and why they have to proceed as they do)"

> We don't know any perfected totalitarian power structure, because it would require the control of all of the planet. But we know enough about the the still preliminary experiments of total organization to realize that the very well possible perfection of this apparatus would get rid of human agency in the sense as we know it. To act would turn out to be superfluous for people living together, when all people have become an example of their species, when all doing has become an acceleration of the movement mechanism of history or nature following a set pattern, and all deeds have become the execution of death sentences which history and nature have given anyway. -- Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism", page 683 in the German edition

and so on. There are a lot of more serious "litmus tests" and more important questions than "have you actually lived there". It's like someone asking "Have you ever been to the gallery of artist X, or did you just see a blurry 5 second smartphone video clip?", without the question whether the person who was there is blind even coming up. If people want to talk about people rather than ideas and facts, let's talk about people. I find it lame, but if it has to be at least let's not half-ass it so badly.

"It's amazing how so many of your posts get downvoted without replies, but BS like binge drinking being out of control in Australia, that's fine."

It's pretty interesting given many of my posts have been about complaints of censorship or punishment of dissenting opinions. Then, more of them try to censor my comments than reply to them. I smile as they prove my point.

"So how is this anything but an ad-hominem and a distraction? "

Good examples showing it's both. All we have to do is have a mental understanding of aspects of something to discuss it. The more understanding, the higher quality of discussion. Much information can be transmitted 2nd hand if through reliable sources. Also note they don't say the same things about their claims of America: their lack of visits meaning all their beliefs are meaningless.

Also, all they mention is violence and death when the worst cities measure violence by a few hundred people per hundred thousand. Still about 1 out of a thousand at worst in places with high violence, thug culture, and plenty bad attitudes. There's other areas so safe nobody ever locks their doors and haven't for decades. Plenty in the middle too.

In any case, you don't see me asking, "Have you lived in America? Do you actually live here or visit often?" They wouldn't need to. They'd just need to look at the numbers of various crimes per area and what contributes to them. They'd fine things exist on a scale with considerable variance. They'd, through studies and Americans' own writings, figure out counterpoints to their own claims. Unlike with Singapore, this is easy to do given we have well-known, international publications in English targeted at many demographics that don't hold anything back for civility or image purposes. :)

You gave me my big laugh for the morning.

That is an interesting observations. I have a few Singaporean friends, working in tech. They are content with the status quo because they are comfortable, their family life is good and don't have much to complain about in general, so they are don't really care much about the level of goverance there.

I'm a malay native and the government discriminate us or atleast feel discriminated or perhaps under represented.. And I'm using my real name

Reply on news.ycombinator.com