Disneyland with the Death Penalty
wired.com
wired.com
As for the death penalty, yeah, they have it. Singapore talks tough but it does not feel like a police state there. When I come home to the US, I am asked 20 questions by the immigration agents. I live here, just let me in. In Singapore, they have "death to drug traffickers" written everywhere, but the immigration agents did not ask me a single question. I don't even recall the usual customs line (red lane / green lane). If you change planes in Singapore, you don't even go through security. You are released into the secure area and you just walk to the gate where your other flight leaves. If you want to traffic drugs, they may have the death penalty, but they don't really care. (They say they care, and they make an example out of one in a million people, but they don't really care. Interestingly, everything is like this in Singapore.)
Anyway, on paper, Singapore is terrible. In real life... it's not too different from any other country.
(The US seems upset about Singapore's death penalty, but we murder a lot more criminals than they do...)
Singapore admittedly isn't that bad. It is one of the most efficient economies in the world, but freedom of speech is very controlled, and libel laws come with criminal consequences. If you stay out of hot topic areas, you won't run into trouble, but you will if you have thE limelight over you on an unpopular topic.
Don't forget to remember the simple guideline that epitomizes Singapore's reaction to lawbreaking on the back of the disembarkation card on the plane in bold, all-caps red letters: "Welcome to Singapore. Death to drug traffickers under Singapore law." [1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SingaporeEmbarkationCard.p... Taiwan used to have a similar message, but has been rarely enforced.
That night we were watching a dubbed version of "9 to 5" on TV, and my mother's cousin asked me if I smoked dope - because all North Americans do, no doubt. :)
Yes they do care and yes they will execute you https://duckduckgo.com/?q=singapore+execute+australian even if you are not a king pin, just some dumb kid.
Also don't get stuck there with out health cover/travel insurance or you will regret it, its not malaysia/thailand.
"He said he was carrying them to Australia for a Sydney syndicate to help his brother Khoa, a former heroin addict, pay A$30,000 ($31,460) in debts."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a...
See how drugs forces people to do "dumb" things?
anyway maybe you will find this interesting http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2010/11/02/3052373...
peace
This is confusing to people not from the US, apparently.
malaria hit him and he ended up in hospital, ended up costing him many thousand of dollars.
yes paying for things like that are foreign to us but the point is if he was stopping over in kuala lumpur or bangkok then he would have paid much less for basically the same high quality of treatment.
We may execute more people, but there's nothing like the anecdotes from Singapore to make you feel like you're just one unlucky afternoon from a death sentence. When you're only this far away from being executed at all times, no matter how squeaky clean you live your life it's easy to get a little nervous.
I'm personally not necessarily against the death sentence, but I definitely appreciate that it is difficult to apply here in the US.
I don't fear for my life everyday when I go to work. I am more concerned that I am late.
After traveling a lot around the region, I can't wrap my mind around articles like these. The second most functional country in SE Asia is Thailand, and it's way more dangerous and less functional than Singapore. Where else? Vietnam? Cambodia? Malaysia? Laos?
I've been to all those places except Laos, and Singapore is nicer in pretty much every way. Don't let the article turn you off from visiting if you get a chance. It's a nice country, with friendly people, and plenty of things to do. If you went, you'd probably enjoy it.
Malaysia is a lot more functional than Thailand on most measures (GDP per capita, number of coups per decade, corruption perception index, etc.)
In the foreign press they get quite a bad rap ... not only do they hang Aussie drug smugglers like Singapore, but they also have racial discrimination laws, religious police who raid bars and hotels, ex-PMs who spout off about "the Jews", etc. And on the ground, they definitely have worse public safety, more drugs, and more cops asking for "tea money" than Singapore (fewer than Thailand, though).
On the other hand there's less alcohol, bigger houses, and cheaper schools, which means a lot of expats perceive it as more family-friendly than Singapore despite the obvious drawbacks. And in reality, KL still has good nightlife despite the occasional tussle with the Islamic Affairs officers (who don't have any authority over non-Muslims anyway).
The Malaysian legal system isn't great, but it's common law, and it's good enough that all the fund managers are happy to use Labuan as a tax haven and a conduit for investing ... into South Korea, who haven't been very successful in pressuring the Malaysians to take Labuan out of the double-taxation agreement. (This is for example how Newbridge Capital managed to avoid paying capital gains tax on Korea First Bank back in 1998). I can't imagine any fund manager or rich tax evader being happy to park his money in a bank in Bangkok even if their taxes were lower.
On the bright side, and directly on topic for Hacker News: both Malaysia and Singapore beat the pants off of any other place in Asia (including Hong Kong) for the level of support they're giving to startups. The talent pool is better in Singapore (simply cuz so many Malaysian grads end up there and don't want to come back), but the real estate costs are a much bigger barrier. See e.g.
That doesn't sound like any government I've ever heard of. I guess my concern is, what if they don't keep doing a good job? Like let's say they get corrupt and slovenly like every other long-running institution. It doesn't seem like there's any way to remove them.
It reminds me of a line from an old Dave Foley sketch. "In Canada we are ruled by a small boy with supernatural powers. (menacingly) Of whom we are all very fond."
A lot of this article is outdated, but it is infamous. Singapore is still an autocratic regime, but steadily becoming more progressive. For instance, local bloggers used to be tailed/monitored and harassed, while today they are invited to official government events and given blogger passes (like a press pass) to cover events on behalf of the citizenry.
The city/country is very surreal, especially once you begin to dig under the surface.
I have a blog post about it that has been sitting in my drafts for over a year now with a bunch of observations (I met a lot of entrepreneurs, businesses, the government people etc.). I have a lot of interesting stories about Singapore. Reading about Singapore again today has prompted me to dig it up - I will publish it this weekend.
I love that place so much that I would seriously consider opening an office there, or at least hiring some people there, for my next startup. It is definitely the most 'Silicon Valley' like city in this hemisphere.
If anybody on HN needs some tips or intros re: Singapore, feel free to email me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland_with_the_Death_Penal...
What I find interesting is that this piece doesn't include the words "crime" or "murder". There are what, one or two (solved) murders per year on an island of 5 million people? Freedom includes bad things not happening to you.
Other freedoms you can enjoy (as far as I know): not having to drive anywhere, being able to hire whoever you want [1]
> Freedom includes bad things not happening to you.
Singapore seems to take a "pragmatic collectivist" approach to freedom. Meaning that anti-social behaviour is strongly limited, and those limits are enforced by the power of the government, but the resulting society has a substantial "Freedom from fear" both from a personal safety perspective, and from a "social security" perspective. Now admittedly these tradeoffs are very different from the tradeoffs in the US, but there is certainly a certain freedom from worry that comes along with it.
Highly developed nations in general seem to have very low homicide rates and very low crime rates. The gap between the Netherlands and Singapore is much smaller than the gap between the Netherlands and Russia (20 homicides per 100,000 in 2006).
Sure, low crime rates are one (of many) factors that make for a nice place but they are not the only one. I will take my freedom of speech and the one in two million chance of being mugged and killed in one year in Germany over probably something like a one in four million chance of the same happening to me in Singapore any day.
(We also don’t know whether something like Singapore can scale up to 100 million or 300 million people or whether you can turn a highly developed nation with a population of, say, 100 million in twenty Singapores without unwanted side-effects.)
A nitpick: Germany (and many other countries) don't really have free speech because of Holocaust denials laws; the laws are written rather broadly [1]. But sure, it's less onerous than in Singapore.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
I think what westernerners misunderstand about singapore is exemplified by the "press button for green man" sign: http://www.flickr.com/photos/greta325/4906069350/
Singapore has a lot of people from cultures that don't pay attention to cleanliness and orderliness. So they have very clear and obvious signs and rules as well as punishments, so that people will conform. Westerners were already brought up in such cultures, they don't need to be shown so explicitly.
Also, Singapore has a lot of seedy stuff going on. They let in thai girls who act as hostesses on 6 month working visas to work in singapore as hostesses, for example. Singapore has organized seediness.
And if you talk to the people in singapore, almost everyone is perfectly satisfied with what the government is doing. It has made a very high standard of living and one of the best countries in south east asia. Why would they not be satisfied?
Anyway, I live here and the article sounds exaggerated and over dramatized, and at the end, I felt it was really humorous. People changed, places changed, rules changed. A well written article doesn't make it real nor the well rehearsed words of a politician. So to say "The author hits it spot on about Singapore", is really bewildering.
I always like to compare the drugs laws here with the gun laws (or lack of) in US. If you care about effectiveness or deaths, which one has ended up with more deaths as a result of the laws based on per capita?
(For the skeptics, oh yeah, you are right, the lee dictatorship is forcing me to write this. Ok I am ready to be downvoted.)
(Speaking of which, a (1993) in the title might be nice, since there's no date on the print version. The original is here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson.html)
The one book which my secondary school teacher recommended and put how Singapore has developed into perspective is 'The Prince'. Although I would say my country is making some of the mistakes the book warned about.
With regards to freedom of speech, Singapore operates based on the principle of OB markers. Many factors have contributed to the existence of these markers, such as the turbulent times that occurred when the countries around the region were gaining independence, the demographics of the surrounding countries ...
Freedom of speech is great when each of us have the wisdom to know when to exercise it or the consequences of a misplaced whisper or misguided rant may not be catastrophic. The fear of certain things being said is from the fear of what the unforeseen consequences might be.
If anyone has questions about Singapore, or interested in starting out here, do contact me.
I'm a born and raised Singaporean as well, as well as a member of an opposition party in Singapore.
Its true that while Singapore has draconian laws like the death penalty, or the Internal Security Act (equivalent of the Patriot Act which allows detention without trial) or even the Public Order Act[1], which allows police to charge a citizen for unlawful assembly even if he's just one person with a sign, one can live life pretty peacefully without any worries like any decent citizen in any other developed country.
But that's only if you're not involved in politics that opposes the current ruling party, the People's Action Party.
There is a great double standard in the lands when it comes to the things opposition parties can do and civil society.
For one, when CASE (Consumers Association of Singapore) held its May 1st 'protest', it was not hassled or stopped by the police.
But when another opposition party goes on to do the same, its activists were convicted and faces a fine ranging from $900 to $1,000 and six or seven days of imprisonment in default.[2]
On the other hand, things are slowly being improved, but opposition leaders still face a problem getting their views heard to the mass media (media is state-owned). Contrary to popular belief, political victory is still determined on the grassroots level which consists of mom and pops, uncles and aunties who do not know how to search or read alternative political news online.
The state-media are renown to be able to shape public opinion as well as discarding letters from the public or opposition leaders from being published[3].
If there's anyone who has any questions about being a member of an opposition party in Singapore, I'd be glad to share my input from the other side of the fence.
P/S: I am not affiliated with the Singapore Democratic Party.
[1] http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=MTM5OQ%3D%3D-3Bt...
[2] http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/4264-singapo...
[3] http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/10/22/singapores-press-fre...
Singapore is perhaps the best example of the so-called Apple 1984-ad state of information purity directives. OK, maybe that is an exaggeration. It is more likely the result of Asian/Confucian culture that views the State as an entity that must not be disagreed with. And like Apple, the standards are very controlled, and those found in violation with its policies are to be eliminated. [1] Like Apple, if you use the product--or the system, in Singapore--as intended, you'll find it very pleasant and easy to use. Try to do something not allowed, and you'll find very little tolerance for it and very little sympathy too.
A lot of Westerners find it bewildering that none of these people will fight for their rights and will let the state erode on their freedoms. That is because it is a result of Confucian influence that has taught them specifically to never be a thorn in the side to anyone: groupthink mentality. So you see that Singapore's codified laws have more in common with the first codes of history or UCMJ than the forgiving laws of the West. Speech is viewed as a privilege in almost all East Asian countries, and those found in abuse will be punished severely and swiftly, and if there are no laws that will allow them to do so, they will be ostracized.
Hong Kong is probably as close as you can get to a free economic state as far as East Asian regions go [2]. It's ironic--I know--that a Chinese region has a relatively free system. But Hong Kong's laws are some of the best in the world--based on Common law framework, right to trial by jury, freedom of speech until 2040. Private banks are authorized to print money/bank notes (HSBC, Standard Chartered, Hang Seng, Bank of China), and the government keeps taxes low (no sales tax and income capped at 15%, 10% if you're in medicine or education). There are no tariffs or excise, and the government sustains public services by hiring and paying good salaries of competent public officials. Hell, their Chief Executive wears a bow tie and his website is http://www.CEO.gov.hk
In fact, I was surprised that all phones in Hong Kong are sold unlocked because government regulations require freedom of phone service. Which is where I bought my iPhone. (And it should come as no surprise that Singapore sells them locked.)
A lot of people think Hong Kong has been ruined by China, but so far, it reminds me a lot of what a startup country with rights would entail; I would venture to say that it is poster child of libertarianism. It is more capitalist than the States (subway and rail systems are privatized), yet provides excellent government benefits (the government makes money by selling land at market value and hiring good salespeople to do it). There is still no death penalty in Hong Kong, and the judicial system is one of the most balanced in the world, with judges that have remained since even during British rule (you are not required to be a Hong Konger to sit as a judge). Hong Kong isn't as clean as Singapore, but it's certainly friendlier to do business. (many Western businesses will not sign agreements with Chinese companies on the Mainland because of its legal framework; China Mobile, for instance, has its corporate headquarters in Hong Kong for this reason). You can't be put in jail just because you write something the government doesn't like. And a whiff of cannabis won't kill you either.
Singapore is similar, except they are probably closer to the Chinese in their ideaology. A lot of people ask me what I think a free China would look like. I said possibly very similar to Singapore, and the truth is, there is a lot in common with China. Taiwan, the so-called Republic of China or "free China," was a military dictatorship (complete with summary trials/executions) until 1993.
[1] You can see that this sustained China through 5,000 years of tyranny since Confucius was well-liked by Chinese kings since he sold brain-washing as a philosophy; that all must respect the parents, the state, and the teacher, because if you do all three, you'll respect me, the king.
[2] Edited for grammar and clarified that Hong Kong is the top ranking free economic system. The laws which are friendly to civil rights (including no death penalty which is still on the books in Japan, freedom of speech), fair application of the law, make it economically very free. However, 1/3 of the government is controlled by the Mainland, and the 2/3rds by corporate interests and the people. http://asiancorrespondent.com/hong-kong-blog/freest-econonom...
To clear up a common misconception I see (and I have no understanding of where this misunderstanding comes from), 'net neutrality' and everything of that ilk (including regulated phone unlocking) is NOT libertarian. It is the exact opposite.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/hong-kong-blog/freest-econonom...
This is the problem with the post. Libertarianism does not lead to market freedom. It does for a very short time until someone becomes dominant and uses that dominance to buy or force out everyone else. The US is closer to libertarian ideas, which is why it has a less free market than other places that understand that capitalism can't work without regulations (the right regulations).
[1] Probably to complex too explain here but the key is that Government and money depend on each other. You can't have one without the other.
It seems to be somewhat an ends/means disagreement. Many branches of libertarianism argue that government interference with private contracts is inherently wrong. Other pro-capitalist views (Hayek among them), though, focus more on the outcomes, arguing that capitalism is good because competitive markets with decentralized decision-making mediated by price signals produce the best outcomes for humanity. Those holding the latter view don't have as blanket an opposition to all kinds of regulation, but would allow some kinds of regulation that are narrowly tailored towards promoting competitive markets. Adam Smith is probably the earliest precursor of that view; for example, he opposed most regulation, but supported requiring employers to pay wages in silver, because he thought on balance, prohibiting employers from paying their employees in IOUs promoted a functioning market economy, so the interference with the employer's absolute freedom to negotiate payment methods with their employees was justified. Hayek outlined a number of kinds of intervention he felt justified as well.
Great post.
Suggesting that Hong Kong is the freest state in the region is kind of ridiculous when you compare it to japan or taiwan (post martial law). Last time I had looked (3 or 4 years ago) both were higher on the UN Human Freedom Index (unfortunately I couldn't find a list online). Also I wouldn't agree that Hong Kong should be held up as an example of a start up state. I love Hong Kong, it is definitely one of the greatest cities in the world. But it produces very little in the way of innovation outside of finance. There isn't a booming start up community in Hong Kong for the same reason there isn't one in Singapore. Because to do business on any worthwhile scale, you have to know which wheels to grease and know the right people to grease them. There was a really great article on this a while ago about why a key reason there weren't any Walmart types in Hong Kong was because it was more profitable to the Triads to keep all the mom and pop shops in business than to work with larger corporations (unfortunately I can't seem to Google anything).
But honestly, those points aren't really what bothered me about your comment as to some extent they are based on perception. What was more perplexing to me was the assertion that Confucianism played a key role in the lack of democracy in Singapore. Certainly Confucianism has played a key role in shaping Singaporean society, but no more than it has in Hong Kong, and almost certainly to a lesser extent than it has in Taiwan. One would be hard pressed to find a nation with a large Chinese population in the subcontinent that doesn't have strong Confucian influences.
Ultimately Hong Kong and Singapore ( and more and more Taipei) are basically the same cities filling the same roles for different populations. The only real difference is Hong Kong is a much more fun city to live in. I agree that Singapore has a glaring issue in the freedoms they allow their people, but really there are a lot of country that do a lot of business that have similar problems (as an American I wouldn't exclude China or the US from that list).
Source: http://asiancorrespondent.com/hong-kong-blog/freest-econonom...
For the 16th straight year Hong Kong has ranked top of the ladder as the freest economy in the world, according to the Index of Economic Freedom by the Heritage Foundation. [...]
This lofty ranking is generally attributed to the efficient processing of business applications, low tax rate and disciplined fiscal management by the government.
1. Starting a business in Hong Kong takes only six days while the rest of the world's average is 35 days 2. Hong Kong's weighted average tariff rate is zero per cent in 2008 3. Individuals enjoy a sliding scale tax rate between 2 and 17 percent 4. Maximum tax rate for businesses is pegged at just 16.5 percent 5. Import duties for beer and wine were removed in 2008 6. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP stood at 14.2 percent 7. Inflation was generally low, averaging 3.5 percent between 2006 and 2008 8. There are no limits and no screening on foreign ownership when setting up foreign firm (except broadcasting) 9. There are no requirements on current transfers, access to foreign exchange and movement of profits.
Go to any apartment in central in HK and you will find a 5 by 5 foot room serving as maid quarters. Then go out in central on a Sunday afternoon and you will see the streets packed with Malaysian and Philippine maids. Then go look at the stats on the number of Chinese businessmen kidnapped in Malaysia and the Philippines every year and tell me there isn't a problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_on_Fire)
This problem doesn't exist anywhere in mainland China or Taiwan. And ultimately it is hard not to view it as an ugly byproduct of economic liberalism in these particular cultures.
And with regards to looks, you got to be kidding me. I assume you are implying they are only getting beautiful ladies. :)
That's not what non-discrimination means at all. What the demographic mix of the employees ends up looking like ought to bear a strong resemblance to the mix of applicants; nothing more.
When I tutored international students from Asia, the largest hurdle was to get them out of this box thinking. They wanted to be told how to write an essay, and they were asking me which side to take because they wanted to agree with the teacher. I said that was your job, that is what the teacher is testing you.
Except, when I read drafts of the essay, it read like a poorly plagiarized text of the history book. I said, you have no argument. You need to take a side. They blamed language difficulties, and I said, even if this were written in Chinese, you have no argument.
The main thing is that Asian countries value system and structure, and view that we stand on shoulders of giants. The problem, though, is they're highly trained and would out beat most US students on the SATs. Platonic systems have spurred a lot of innovation, but again, in the US, our foundations are weak: any moron can think he is genius in the States. The US education system is an interesting beast--it spurs innovation around college, but weak foundations during middle school years
For many industries, good foundations are keys to success. For software, though, you need to be able to be free thinking. Maybe this explains why China copies a lot of our software!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions
It's interesting to note that almost all the inventions came before the Qing dynasty. Qing's Qianlong Emperor (1711-1799) is considered a "Confucian fundamentalist", who paved the way for the subsequent isolationist policies.
Confucianism is just one school of philosophy among many in China btw. Its influence tends to fluctuate from period to period.
You're claiming Hong Kong isn't start up friendly because it doesn't support devastating monopolies like Walmart [1]??? Are you seriously telling me that if you went to a country where everywhere you looked you saw people in business for themselves you would find that less entrepreneur friendly than a place that just had one Walmart and nothing else? Monopoly is the exact opposite of free market.
[1] http://www.walmarteffectbook.com/
It never ceases to shock me when apparent free market proponents hold up Walmart as an example to aspire to. Are people not aware how much special treatment from the government Walmart gets? They do produce innovations here and there, but with the amount of money flowing through their fingers they bloody well should.
Say what you want about Wal-Mart (I avoid them like the plague just because I find the shopping experience actively repugnant), but to go from inception to world-dominating monster in ~40 years is impressive.
For as long as I can remember (and that means the last 10 years), Singapore have always only have unlocked handsets.
Articles like these (by an outsider) tends to paint an extreme picture of the city. If people just bothered to look around, you'll see dirty toilets, rubbish on the floor, lots of poor people, and yes, news reports of corruption.
And if you look at the other extreme, you'll see friendly and helpful people that deal with (government-owned) housing problems etc.
The world's not black and white.
It's not that you have to cross the Malaysia border to encounter dirt for the first time, but compared with neighbouring cities, or even parts of European cities that have been built since 1956 - levels of visible dirt and poor people that aren't working are noticeably low in Singapore. The streets might not be paved with gold but they still shine.
You might see vestiges of poverty in sleeping middle-aged "security guards" and armies of immigrant construction workers, and the even poorer denizens of Desker Road that serve their base needs, but you won't encounter homeless people begging for change. HDBs are colourful, well-maintained homes for the people. When I did see a piece of graffiti in Singapore - a political slogan even - I thought it worthy of being photographed.
In London, every ATM machine appears to have a friendly beggar and his dog, our failed attempts at social housing are used as the setting for A Clockwork Orange, and our transport networks are lined with graffiti to the point that sometimes I wonder if it's the only thing holding the crumbling structural fabric together.
And yes, outsiders' analysis of our social and political relations is always amusingly exaggerated and inaccurate. :-)
This writer could write ten pages about the terrors of your own dark basement if he wanted to.
Yes, a few wealthy families own half the businesses and property, and can survey their empires from the comfort of their mansions on Victoria peak. Meanwhile, down in Wan Chai Filipina maids moonlight as sex workers, offering handjobs to stressed-out bankers to make ends meet, and over in Tai Kok Tsui elderly Chinese immigrants live in cages. Capitalism in action...
Still, it's a cool place, and to be fair the large middle class population can enjoy a high quality of life. I haven't been to Singapore, but it sounds like HK is a fair bit dirtier and more chaotic, and also more alive. On the other hand, I've found that even here there's a lack of 'alternative' culture, even less than in the mainland. Beijing has a small but thriving local music scene, whereas HK's feels almost non-existent. Feels like people here care more about shopping and status symbols than anything else.
It'd be interesting to read what William Gibson would have to say about Hong Kong. Chungking Mansions in TST felt like something out of a cyberpunk novel, all Nigerian drug dealers hanging out in Indian curry houses next to stalls selling Chinese knock-off iPads.
Edit:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1917897,00.htm... http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/KI03Cb02.html
Basically just bunks with wire mesh to protect belongings. You'd not guess from walking around the streets.
I beg to differ with the article and wonder if I'm a product of the system as the author described or that maybe he just hasn't lived long enough in Singapore. A lot of the content is outdated, in my opinion.
May I respectfully give a personal perspective on some remarks that I feel are rather over-the-top. Please let me know if you agree/disagree:
> A lot of people ask me what I think a free China would look like. I said possibly very similar to Singapore, and the truth is, there is a lot in common with China.
To be frank, I think that could not be further from the truth. As a Singaporean Chinese, I find my way of thinking very different from that of friends and even relatives from mainland China. It has been reported that Deng Xiaoping and other senior members of the Chinese government looked to Singapore for ideas on economic, social and political reform back then, but I think how policies were eventually implemented were very different.
> Don't forget to remember the simple guideline that epitomizes Singapore's reaction to lawbreaking on the back of the disembarkation card on the plane in bold, all-caps red letters: "Welcome to Singapore. Death to drug traffickers under Singapore law."
Like what someone else said, on paper, Singapore looks horrible but in reality, it's just like any other country. I chew gum on the streets, I could leave trash outside of bins if I wanted to, sometimes I forget to flush after using a public restroom... (silly examples but tongue firmly in cheek) all without penalty.
On one hand, some laws like the penalties for drug-trafficking seem draconian by comparison. On the other, I wonder if it is because of these strict laws that one is able to wander around alone almost anywhere at night without fear. Or simply, if you don't want to be arrested, don't bring illegal drugs into the country...
> Also don't get stuck there with out health cover/travel insurance or you will regret it, its not malaysia/thailand.
You're right that on average Malaysia/Thailand heathcare costs are probably cheaper. Currently I have no health insurance and pay less than US$30 every time I go into a public health clinic for a cold, an annual physical or a dental checkup. A lot of people from the region actually come to Singapore for good, reliable health-care, leading to a medical tourism boom in recent decades.
> Challenge the Lee dictatorship and comeback and tell us how little they care.
Well, I question government policies openly in public, and so far, I haven't found myself behind bars. Maybe I'm just not important enough ;)
Speaking about the government... I wish for more transparency on how the government invests money from its sovereign funds(i.e. taxpayers' money). I hope silly election tactics like redrawing of electoral boundaries won't be used anymore, etc.
But I do want the efficient, corruption-free(at certain levels, it still helps if one has the right connections though) bureaucratic processes to continue to flourish.
As a startup founder, I found it a breeze to get incorporated(2 days), rent an office and complete the administrative-type tasks. However, innovation certainly seems to be a problem. The jump from years of mainly being indoctrinated with "trust the government to do the right thing", "study hard and be a good worker" to "come up with your own ideas!", "be unique!"(which ironically, is being promoted by the government!) will take some time, I guess.
Government-supported investment funds may abound, but I get the impression that those guys are terribly risk-averse and want to back certain winners.
> Singapore Airlines is notorious for discriminating age, sex, and lookgs for its flight attendants.
I'm not a fan of Singapore Airlines, but one is certainly free to sue them for discriminatory practices.
Pardon my long, at times sarcastic response. I guess I get somewhat annoyed when binary statements are repeatedly made based on things that I think have obvious shades of gray.
Anyway, come to Singapore and let's have coffee sometime; I'd love to meet up with fellow HNers and chat about this funny island country of mine!
That's kind of funny considering the opening of the article was written from the perspective of Hollywood, which isn't exactly known to foster the careers of talented but less attractive actresses, let alone ones past their 30's.