Singapore teen blogger Amos Yee granted US asylum | Hacker News Reader

Singapore teen blogger Amos Yee granted US asylum

edition.cnn.com

49 pointshellofunk38 comments

I've been to Singapore once and find it to be a beautiful city/state. That being said, as an American, I do find some of the policies a bit disconcerting as it reminds me of one of my favorite dystopian books, 1984.

* People love to talk about how bad Duerte is in the Philippines (he is), but in Singapore, 18oz of marijuana gets you a mandatory death penalty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_(Singapore...

* Singapore is a 1 party system that has been controlled by the same family (the lee family) since what, the 1920s? It isn't a democracy when there is one party, it is a monarchy, just call a spade a spade. It seems to work for them, but they're simply fooling themselves calling it that.

* You can not legally import chewing gum into Singapore and there is a $700 fine if you happen to spit it on the street: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore

* They very much censor media / free speech. If they didn't, this article wouldn't be news.

* Littering or any petty theft can result in a caning, which depending on the severity, is split up over two days. This is to keep the punished from bleeding to death (seriously).

* Only the government elite can afford to drive vehicles. This is due to the taxes and registrations for even a 20 year old car being around 100,000 local currency. They force the public to use transit.

* They require iris scans of every citizen and permanent resident (as of Jan 2016)

on and on. Sure it is great and there is no crime and the economy looks great, but it bothers me the lack of freedom to innovate, to do something different, to be wrong. I can't quite place it, but never felt comfortable there even if I'm safer in Singapore than I am here in Chicago where I currently type from.

I currently live in Athens, Greece. The place could really use heavier littering fines, especially for gum. The sidewalks are disgusting.

Not to detract from the other points, those are indeed super disturbing.

There's a great deal of misinformation and wrong-headed insinuation in this comment.

>People love to talk about how bad Duerte is in the Philippines (he is), but in Singapore, 18oz of marijuana gets you a mandatory death penalty

There's a great deal of difference between endorsing extra-legal killings (Duerte) and having laws with extremely harsh punishment (Singapore). The reason for Singapore's harsh drug laws is that, at least up to 1-2 decades ago, it was a major transport/business hub in the region of significant drug trafficking. The overtly harsh policy was meant to fend off any chance of Singapore becoming any sort of drug trafficking hub.

>Singapore is a 1 party system that has been controlled by the same family (the lee family) since what, the 1920s?

Lee Kuan Yew took office as Prime Minister in 1959. Also, this notion that the country has been "controlled" by the same family also needs to be put into context - Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong have been two out of the three Prime Ministers in Singapore's short history as a nation. Many members of the extended Lee family hold prominent positions in the private sector and government-linked corporations. So does the family hold a lot of influence? Highly likely. But is it "controlled" by the family? I'd like to see more evidence of that.

>there is a $700 fine if you happen to spit it on the street Which is akin to a littering fine.

>They very much censor media / free speech. If they didn't, this article wouldn't be news. Do they, though? There are 4 broad classes of "censorship" you could talk about:

1) Yes, there are strong laws against inflammatory statements relating to race and religion. These are significant, do curtail freedom of speech, and should be challenged or at least debated. Unfortunately, Amos Yee ran afoul of this. This is the only reason he's in trouble.

2) There is a requirement for websites having viewership above 50,000 a month to register as a "news organization"[1]. I personally strongly disagree with this, but also this has to date never been used to curtail speech. (Note: I'm not a fan of the "but this law/policy hasn't been abused yet" as a defense for a bad law/policy. I'm just stating the fact that it hasn't.)

3) Outright incitation of violence. I'm not sure how this varies across different countries/states, but I don't think this uniquely Singaporean.

4) Libel/Slander. These laws are standard. Yes, the Lee family has gone after opposition members who make factually false attacks.

But nested in the claim that "free speech is censored" is the insinuation that people cannot criticize government officials and policy. There is almost nothing further from the truth. In fact, Singaporeans are regularly self-deprecating how much they complain and rag on the government for bad policies. There is nearly no curtailment of the freedom to criticize, attack or badmouth policy, government or government officials (up to libel and slander).

There is also no illusion about the biases of media Singaporeans consume. Everybody in Singapore grows up knowing that the major news outlets have a pro-government bias, being closely linked to people in government. Everybody in Singapore grows up hearing the cliche that the history lessons are "government propaganda".

Singaporeans are among the most internet-savvy country-population in the world[2][3]. The Internet in Singapore, barring a laughable "symbolic list of 100 websites blocked"[3] is unfiltered. People who want to find alternative views, who want to organize against policy, can.

>Littering or any petty theft can result in a caning, which depending on the severity, is split up over two days. This is to keep the punished from bleeding to death (seriously). Littering only results in fines. Vandalism can and has resulted in caning. No doubt, caning (especially in the prison form) is harsh, antiquated corporal punishment. But harsh is different from unjust.

>Only the government elite can afford to drive vehicles. This is due to the taxes and registrations for even a 20 year old car being around 100,000 local currency. They force the public to use transit.

The first statement is so blatantly false I'm not going to bother refuting it. Cars are expensive and are a middle/middle-upper-class good. Singapore has a system whereby ownership of a car requires a license that costs up to tens of thousands of US dollars. This sounds over-the-top - but is also the correct solution from an economists' point of view. The government wants to reduce the number of cars on the road, so it taxes car owners. The cost of the license is determined by supply and demand via a market mechanism (e.g. the price has gone down during recessions). Meanwhile, the government plows significant funds into expanding the public transport network. Of all the Singaporean policies to complain about, transport is among one of the best thought-out, unless you already have a notion that a car is something everyone should own.

>They require iris scans of every citizen and permanent resident (as of Jan 2016) As of Jan 2017[5]. And is this really different from finger-print scans? Is this any more intrusive?

---

There are many reasons to criticize Singapore, but please stick to facts.

[1] http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/mda-rolls-out-licence-... [2] https://data.gov.sg/dataset/mobile-penetration-rate [3] http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/singapore/ [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Singapo... [5] http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/authorities-to...

In a way I agree with the transport choice. Gas guzzling cars are a terrible choice for moving people around. It does fund a pretty massive industry of mechanics, dealers, gas stations etc but for a small dense population like Singapore it makes total sense to discourage cars.

All of the Singaporeans I know a) hate him, and b) totally missed the point he was making, albeit somewhat ham-handedly.

Singapore's philosophy of governance is the same as the PRC's, just with velvet gloves on. People look the other way because they've been able to keep the standard of living up, but if there's ever a sustained economic downtown and loud discontent with the PAP, the fiction will be disposed of quickly and we'll find out how much of a democracy it really is.

SG makes me wonder about my personal convictions regarding liberal democracy. I still personally believe liberal democracy is best for those of us in the West. Then again, we are hypocrites ourselves from funding Saudi Arabia to electing Trump based on promises of draconian anti-liberalism, so I'm not sure how well we can make the argument ourselves.

[0] I really hope this need not be said, but I mean liberalism not as in left politics, but liberalism as in liberal democracy.

I neither voted for trump, nor do I support Saudi Arabia

what's the point he was trying to make?

Well, it's in the article.

I worked in Singapore last April, a wonderful city/country. I can't speak to how much 'freedom' there is in Singapore, but I would go back to work there in a heartbeat if another good work opportunity occurs.

I noticed no poverty, everyone seemed busy and industrious. Anyway, I loved it there.

Poverty is easy to clean up when being poor is a crime.

I take it you've never been to SG.

There are poor people and it isn't a crime to be poor.

Homeless get jailed pretty quick. So there is a wealth floor below which you are treated as a criminal.

What is the state of jails though? Do they take care of the extreme poor and give them some training so they can be functioning in society?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-life-like-in-a-Singaporean-pri...

But I don't think the question matters. Prison could be relative heaven and you'd still be denyng the basic human right to liberty.

apparently, one of the crimes Amos Yee was convicted of in Singapore involved making disparaging remarks about both Muslims and Christians. and that sort of speech can actually be a crime in Singapore (as it can in the EU).

so, after the US granted him asylum, some in the SG government noted that there are plenty of other people in the world who are making these kinds of illegal "hate speech" statements who ought to also be granted asylum in the US.

as an American, i don't always know what to make of this. free speech means different things in different democracies. the US definition of free speech rights is not the only game in town, or even the best game in town (?).

fascinating.

Singapore and Malaysia have a history of quite significant race riots during the 1960s - some of my family members (who weren't rioters) ended up on the wrong end of a tear gas cannon in Kuala Lumpur during that time. It's not entirely surprising, given Singapore's rather paternalistic political philosophy, that the government feels that strong racial/ethnic vilification laws are an appropriate way of responding to the threat of public disorder.

I'm not convinced the Singaporean approach is consistent with the freedom of speech and in particular freedom of political communication rights that I value so much, but I can certainly understand how they got to where they are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_race_riots_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_race_riots_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_May_Incident

While I agree with your assessment, one could argue that the restriction of hateful or disparaging speech creates incorrect and harmful stereotypes that can lead to harm, whether it be in the form of street violence or democratic demagoguery.

And one could then extrapolate that such permissiveness in speech, even if it directly or indirectly leads to harm, could spill over into damage and instability to society as a whole, particularly to those who were neither a part of the class of those using hateful speech, nor those who were on the receiving end.

To me, it appears to be a reasonable tradeoff. Such like how in America the second amendment permits private firearm ownership, but federal law justifiably bans private ownership of automatic weapons, military grade explosives, and so on.

> as an American, i don't always know what to make of this. free speech means different things in different democracies. the US definition of free speech rights is not the only game in town, or even the best game in town (?).

There isn't anything to think of it in that sense. Other nations / cultures are free to establish whatever they decide are their rules around speech and so to is the US. There isn't more to it than that: the US is one of the strongest defenders when it comes to speech and has been for centuries.

I can say things about Trump any time I please (the Internet is of course overflowing with the nastiest possible things directed at Trump, every insult possible), that would get people arrested in the majority of nations on the planet if directed at their leader/s. That principle has made the US stronger rather than weaker. If your 'democracy' is so fragile that it can't allow for an insult toward its leadership, well, good luck, you're not going to last long.

In the US you can create rap videos, pretend-murdering the President. You can create fantasy documentaries simulating murdering the President. I find those things obnoxious and I'm glad they're protected speech, they're of no threat to me or the President. I'll take that over prison for insulting the king every day of the week.

I totally agree with the point you're making but I do want to make it clear this is also (mostly) the case all over the "western world", for instance. (it varies slightly country-by-country.)

> I find those things obnoxious and I'm glad they're protected speech, they're of no threat to me or the President. I'll take that over prison for insulting the king every day of the week.

I think you're talking about something different than I'm talking about.

I was talking about saying hateful or insulting things about other people in society, not politicians and public figures.

Even to me it's clear that public figures in the US should have to bear a lot of criticism and ridicule in the name of preserving a free and open debate about political topics.

But, OTOH, even democracies like France make certain kinds of offensive, bigoted or anti-Muslim speech prosecutable crimes. That was the difference I was trying to focus on.

As an American, it's clear to me that the freedom to criticize, ridicule, condemn the government, politicians and other public figures is critical to maintaining a democratic process. But, at the same time, it's not necessarily as clear to me that being able to insult my fellow citizen's religion or ethnicity is. In other words, I'm not prepared to say that France is not a true democracy because of that.

Was it "hate speech" it freedom of religious view? Serious question because the article doesn't go into enough detail.

Ugh, heck no. Autoplay video when visiting the page.

Maybe link to a better page instead?

If it pleases the mods, the link should be changed to something like The Guardian's article[1].

On another note, it should be noted the US does not have a perfect track record for providing asylum to those who deserve it[2].

1-https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/25/singapore-te...

2-https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/opinion/sunday/locked-up-...

When I saw the page being slow to load and the video repeatedly trying to play, refresh, play, try to play a different way (trying unsuccessfully to circumvent my autoplay blocker), I just disabled javascript. Page loads instantly and the content is right there with no visual clutter.

Thanks, that's a good tip. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com