Singapore tells Facebook to correct post under new fake news law
reuters.com
reuters.com
As with many places, the situation in my country is a bit more nuanced than a simple "the ruling party has ruled the country since 1965". Civilisation is the surrender of varying degrees of civil liberty for security and safety, and over here we definitely surrender more degrees of civil liberty for the safety and security of our streets. As another user put it, essentially a benevolent dictatorship, emphasis on the benevolent. For the most part, the ruling party has done a good job with the administration of the government. Things are fast and efficient. Is it worth the trade? It depends on your perspective. Even as a liberal, I agree that the paternalism of the government is not without its merits.
There were quite a lot of push-back on the POFMA (what the fake news law is called) among the people, though our politicians, no doubt because of their same-party membership, barely discussed anything concrete in our parliamentary debates. In the end, the law was passed because of course it would be.
That's a pretty reductivist way to define civilisation...
From this definition; It sounds to me like there is a certain character/type of people who are redeemed as Civilized based on Govt definition. Thus justifies heavy control over society.
"As a liberal", wouldn't it be more favourable to design the system around liberty of choice for the individual rather than control of a central power?
If you disagree, try telling the police that they have no right to infringe on your personal freedom when they stop you for drink-driving. Or theft. Or even jay-walking. To be in a society, any kind of society, involves giving up personal freedoms in exchange for something, usually safety or stability. We just have a different idea of what's an acceptable loss of personal freedom.
I agree that it'd be favourable to design the system about personal freedom, but that system comes with its own inefficiencies and disadvantages that by large my country deem unacceptable. Unfortunately, Singapore is still largely a pragmatic and conservative society that min-maxes for economic stability, and it'd be long before this changes.
Agreed. I would consider banning slavery as more civilized, but it is an expansion of civil liberties.
Same with having general freedom of expression. Any thug can ban "lies" he doesn't like. Kings used to declare themselves gods and execute dissenters.
It's an expansion of civil liberties for one group (the enslaved), at the cost of limiting the civil liberties of another group (the former slave owners): you're preventing the slave owners from exercising their freedom to enslave people and force them to work.
>Same with having general freedom of expression. Any thug can ban "lies" he doesn't like.
Same here. Even a law that bans yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is infringing on the civil liberties of people to speak freely and cause chaos.
Personally, I'm perfectly happy with these infringements of civil liberty. It's better for society to avoid needless chaos from people shouting "fire!" and to prevent people from being enslaved. But they are limiting absolute freedom.
Singapore is the first place where I actually began to question whether democracy was the absolute way. Democracy was how I was raised. Overall, I still believe it is the way long term, but what can you do when you have a single, unified government that cares for its people is simply amazing.
Safest in the world, hands down. This can be felt in every day life. I hold tables while I get my lunch with my cell phone. I've even dared it in public "hawker centers" a number of times. My friends have had stuff stolen, but that was in the bathroom where there's no "watchful eye". My kid can run/play freely and I only worry about her running into traffic.
A about 1-2 years ago, someone was stabbed to death in the central business district. It was the biggest headline for ages - murder of passion from father-in-law. That's it... nothing else. I don't think/worry about guns - ever.
"Hawker Centers" are basically food for the people. Each meal can be had for US$2-4. I live in public housing, HDB, and while that sounds weird - 70%+ is public housing. i.e. only PR or citizens may purchase (I can rent as an expat). This keeps the price of homes at a relatively reasonable amount. US$250k - US$600k. Housing is not perfect but it is way better than stateside problems.
There are dark sides, do not get me wrong (built on the backs of migrant workers who can never gain status - is just one. Black and Chinese built US but gained status eventually... migrants can never gain status here and continue to build this country), but they're not nearly as dark as others.
Is it worth it? I say if you are willing to submit yourself, it completely is.
Any figures to back that up? It's said that nothing gets stolen in Singapore, until you speak to Singaporeans. Bikes still get stolen for instance. The city seems super clean, but mainly because low paid workers clean the city really often. If a Singaporean visits another country you'll notice that they're used to the city being cleaned often, not so much that they're behaving differently.
Your "Hawker Centers" have people in their 70s bent forward cleaning up tables to some earn money. Those centers are cheap, but why does the benevolent government not care for those people?
Further, Singapore is pretty much a city, nothing more. Being isolated from any other country helps a lot too.
I think you too easily dismiss the "dark sides".
> My kid can run/play freely and I only worry about her running into traffic.
This is the same as a lot of other countries.
IMO the biggest benefit of Singapore is being a small city on pretty much an island.
A friend of mine left her cellphone in a mall bathroom once, on the bench when she washed her hands. Went all the way home and realised she forgot it.
After ~4 hours when she reached the mall. It was still sitting where she left it.
> Your "Hawker Centers" have people in their 70s bent forward cleaning up tables to some earn money.
There is no social safety net in Singapore. So once you get old, there's no benefit or dole, or any government funded programs to give you a comfy life where tax payers pay for you. The idea is you life off your CPF. Because there are people who have no savings. The government subsidizes their salaries. If a company hires them then the government will pay a portion of the salary, this gives incentive to businesses to hire them.
You could raise taxes for businesses and individuals, but then who would move their business or come work in Singapore?
Googling it seems ranked about no 5 to 7 in the world eg https://safearound.com/danger-rankings/
Democratic Iceland seems to be #1 mostly. Fun Iceland fact:
>It [has] the oldest surviving parliament in the world, a claim shared by Tynwald. The Althing was founded in 930 at Þingvellir ("thing fields" or "assembly fields"), situated approximately 45 kilometres (28 mi) east of what later became the country's capital, Reykjavík.
A simple Google search will show you Singapore and Tokyo are regarded as the 2 safest cities on Earth, which one is first depends on which report you read.
japan also has something like a 99 percent conviction rate, not sure how that aligns with being anti authoritarian.
21 days to be arraigned is nothing to be proud of, however.
Japanese culture is very different from pretty much any other culture. They respect each other and their country and environment. (except whales) They are raised from a young age to look after each other and respect each other. Something the rest of the world could learn from.
Culture is a product of your environment.
As opposed to, say, cleaners in the West, which are paid more than engineers,
You are an expat from United States, so your experience is much much different than most people there. Westerners are immediately moved to the top of the culture stack.
There absolutely are abuses, particularly for maids and manual laborers, but many of the worst (eg advance fees that put them into debt) are explicitly illegal in Singapore, and calling white-collar expats "slave labor" is absurd hyperbole.
The ethnic bias is real and extreme, and they take advantage of the employee’s home country disadvantage when setting terms.
That said, yes, I think safety and honesty are fairly embedded. Yesterday, the case of somebody trying to bribe a condo rentacop to overlook their (illegal) AirBnB guest made the news: the guard refused the $50, reported the bribery attempt to the police, and the offender was sent to jail for a week:
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/pacific-mansi...
In most neighboring countries, if this kind of thing made headlines, the news would have nothing else.
Maybe for US persons this seems like a paradise, but its not a unique place. I know where I want to raise my kids. It sure as hell ain't some artificial bubble like Singapore. Never have been there, plenty of colleagues did (or live there), cool and all but not great for actually settling there.
I value true freedom way too high.
But it‘s also very sterile imo. Sure there is awesome street food and culture in general to a degree. But i kept missing the borderline stuff there. I like to live in a place where people are allowed to make mistakes, even criminal ones in some cases, and not have their live be over Immediately. That sounds weird to some i suppose.
To be fair, that is possible in a lot of countries, I would have doubts to do that in America though. And not only because of crime.
> I actually began to question whether democracy was the absolute way.
There are several democratic countries that beat Singapore in regards to safety. So I believe this to be flawed reasoning. It is a safe country, but not exceptionally so.
edit: Disregarding the fact that Singapore is officially a democracy. A benevolent dictatorship would probably look more like the Gadaffi regime. Economic success in such a dictatorship is probably mandatory.
I would say the contemporary West's emphasis on authoritarianism is probably doing more harm than good. First of all the emphasis doesn't make things better - authoritarian would continue to be authoritarian whether you put the emphasis on their authoritarian nature or not. Secondly, it's pretty much a heresy suppression situation [1] here, or a (conscious or subconscious) distraction strategy embedded in the mode of thinking if you will, both of which are ironically what authoritarianism is best at i.e. suppression and distraction. Ultimately there is some form of authoritarianism existing in every system. You just have to look deep enough. Of course, some systems enjoy more democracy and a higher degree of freedom than the others, while some enjoy more achievements in KPI. But by emphasising on a system's authoritarian nature you are painting yourself a much simpler picture about the world here as if it is authoritarian v.s. the people, when things are so much more complicated than that.
It's very unfortunate that comment like this one is getting downvotes on HN.
It seems to me that you don't have to surrender so much, but I am totally unaware of your situation. And maybe I am desensitized to the lack of safety.
I want to ask, what are the threats, and what is your exposure to them?
...We're just debating the word "varying" and might not agree with your conclusion.
If you disagree, try telling the police that they have no right to infringe on your personal freedom when they stop you for drink-driving. Or theft. Or even jay-walking. To be in a society, any kind of society, involves giving up personal freedoms in exchange for something, usually safety or stability. We just have a different idea of what's an acceptable loss of personal freedom.
This _ruling party_ is benevolent when it suits them.
In 2018, a historian criticized this and said that the govt broke this fake news law and that the law should apply to govt too.
However, govt said that the historian's evidence were incorrect even though no other historians dispute this fact.
See: https://medium.com/@pj_85357/follow-up-submission-to-the-sel...
But hey, I said what had to be said, and see no point arguing about the formalities. I'll let HN users decide for themselves.
That actually weakens the claim that it's a military dictatorship. If the army is controlled by civilians, its not a military dictatorship. If a person becomes leader of the military due to civilian connections, then it's not a military dictatorship.
A military dictatorship is when a person becomes civilian leader by virtue of their military leadership. If the son of the civilian prime minister first gets to take over the army, it doesn't change the fact that he's fundamentally a civilian and the civilians are controlling - inside and out - the military. It reinforces it. He led the army and the country because of his civilian credentials.
This sounds more like rule by and for a family or a small group of elites.
According to this logic, the United States was a military dictatorship for a good portion of its history. Presidents Washington, Jackson, W. Harrison, Taylor, Pierce, A. Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, B. Harrison, and Eisenhower were all generals. Your claim is absurd.
A military dictatorship installs the dictator and the dictator relies on the support the generals to stay in power.
That isn't the case in Singapore (nor many other dictatorships, where the dictator controls the military).
You can tell by if the dictator has generals replaced, or vice-versa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regimes
Not seeking to discredit the ruling party. What they've done with Singapore is nothing short of a miracle. But the fact is that they're still backed up by a ridiculously strong army, and the opposition party exists just so they can say there is one (but is frequently bullied regardless).
Note that by this measure, there can be "military democracies", such as the U.S. during 55 years (in 1946-2008) where the president was ex-military (e.g. Bush).
[0] https://sites.google.com/site/joseantoniocheibub/datasets/de...
The Singapore government has been trying to move away from this — a significant part by requesting that the press address them as "Mr", instead of their military ranks. There was a time when Lee Hsien Loong was addressed as `BG (NS) Lee Hsien Loong` everywhere [1].
One of the potential heirs to the Prime Ministership is the ex-Chief of Army, Chan Chun Sing [2]. It's very rare to see either the media, or the government themselves, to address him as `MG (NS) Chan Chun Sing` in their publications.
[1] Example from a government website: https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/record-detail...
That country is an authoritarian nanny state disguised as Disney Land.
I have visited many times and have lots of friends there. Nobody cares about freedom of the press because they are well paid and comfortable.
They have truly figured out how to placate the masses.
But while Singapore feels more or less like the west, China most definitely does not, and the gap grows wider year after year.
Seems like they could start with some more personal freedoms for the Uighurs fairly quickly if the goal was that magnanimous.
(1993) "Disneyland with the Death Penalty", by William Gibson:
Could this not equally be applied to America?
The US has freedom of the press, Singapore does not. It really is that simple.
I worry about my ability to enter Singapore after posting comments like this, which is a real concern that impacts my livelihood.
Additionally, I don't hate America but readily admit we have our faults.
Your statement about my travels, is equally inaccurate.
This was my observation about Monaco too.
If people were poor and fighting for opportunities in that hamlet they would call it authoritarian. But since it isn't and is free from adversity it is viewed favorably (and the poor people can live across the street in France). Just a fascinating look into relative morality, or masquerading disdain of certain forms of government as a moral issue while ignoring others, as opposed to just the authoritarian nature of a particular government.
that's because freedom of press and similar rights are a uniquely western phenomenon that are --- despite what droves of its proponents will tell you --- derived from christian values that didn't and don't exist anywhere else.
Many in the broader region don't care about freedom of press, while also being poorly paid and uncomfortable. No placation of masses needed.
This is incorrect. Europe is quite unique in that since the advent of Christianity there has always existed a church separate from the state acting as a counterbalance thereto, and offering an alternative foundation of moral authority. Despite this, brutal suppression of all dissent and criticism of the political structure was almost always supported by the Church, which generally allied itself with dominant regimes (i.e. feudal rulers).
It wasn't until the flurry of neoclassicist-inspired philosophising of the Enlightenment and the emergence of monied elites in a position to pressure the state to grant them rights that said rights were slowly granted. They often couched their arguments in terms of Christian doctrine, but this is just the incidental result of the dominance of the Christian religion in society at that time.
I wouldn't say that it's entirely incidental. Christianity is compatible with individualism in a way that some other religions are not.
This is not quite correct. Christian values would be a strict theocracy with no freedom of the press.
Liberal values descend from a robust view of agency, eg humanism which is more or less incompatible with strict interpretations of Christianity. Compatible with deism though.
Two very different messages.
Love your neighbor and judge others as you would judge yourself.
Uighurs are Turkic people who are genetically different from ethnic Chinese. Transplant recipients must have similar genes in their immune systems to those of the donor. Otherwise, the body will reject the organ. This is also why blacks have a harder time finding organ donors: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2013/01/21/blacks...
Also, what kind of evidence would be sufficient for you? A video footage of harvesting from one of the camps?
I'm done here too. Thanks for the constructive discussion.
To be fair, the chinese call it de-radicalization/re-education centers, which they set up after a few extremist separatist attacks which killed hundreds of people. And as for the organs, much of the west ( especially in europe ) take people's organs without their explicit consent (it's called opt-out organ "donation".
> Maybe if they had the scale to do so they would, but that's not really the question when it comes to public opinion.
Nonsense. It's called political expediency and the trade war. A decade ago, when china was our "friend", we were talking about "chimerica" and praising their handling of muslim extremists in xinjiang and china's help with our war on "muslim terrorists". A decade later and we are in the midst of a trade war and the propaganda changes.
I feel like equating the forcible harvesting of organs to opt out organ donation is extremely disingenuous.
I also remember the propaganda about iraqi soldiers killing babies in hospitals which turned out to be a manufactured lie.
I'm sure the chinese government does a lot of bad things, like every major government, but the 24/7 ridiculous "news" we are getting now, is just propaganda.
I'm not a psychic, but I predicted the following when the trade war began.
1. "organ harvesting" ( to be fair I mistakenly assumed it would be tied to tibetans or the falun gong )
2. hong kong protest ( just like during the pivot to asia 5 years ago )
3. "chinese spies" or "politicians" magically defecting with outlandish stories
4. "international" awards ( nobel peace, think tank awards, whatever ) being awarded to politically expedient people
And if things really escalate, then I'll make another prediction - yellow peril style propaganda. And of course, the chinese will also escalate their propaganda.
If the PRC wants to be respected, they could publish information and allow journalists in instead of lying.
I have no doubt these countries have done horrible things, but they do not deserve to be invaded and subjected to millions of civilian deaths.
Weird.
I find that in Western reporting, the actual issues involved in Xinjiang are not discussed at all. Instead, it's presented as if the Chinese government had a problem with Muslims. The entire issue of separatism is rarely mentioned, nor is the fact that the largest Muslim group in China is actually the Hui (rather than the Uyghurs). The media is not really trying to inform the public about the situation and underlying conflicts (e.g., the East Turkestan movement), and instead painting a vastly dumbed-down, cartoonish picture that serves other propaganda interests.
"All Hui-run nursery schools, child care centers and religious schools were forcibly closed in Ningxia and across Yunnan and Henan provinces, which are also home to a large number of Hui Muslims."
"Imams in Henan and Ningxia must now attend monthly training sessions that can last for days. There, imams told NPR, they are taught Communist ideology and state ethnic policy and discuss Xi Jinping's speeches. Imams must then pass an exam testing their ideological knowledge in order to renew their license each year, mirroring how the government issues licenses to imams in the Xinjiang region."
I've just moved back to China now and I would have to say that China does the opposite of embracing western values. They go with, well, "the Chinese way". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21602206
Weird combination of statements. It gives the impression (though you probably mean something different that anyone not liking it is 1) "left" 2) not part of Western values
Left vs right is pretty useless distinction anyway. Someone who is considered "left" in US is IMO very much "right" in Netherlands. Plus some parties on the right or left differ greatly on how they see things. E.g. not every "left" party will align with what someone agrees with; else there wouldn't be multiple parties. Those parties differ more greatly than "a little bit left" vs "a lot left" (with some exceptions).
Further, I reject the notion that someone who is left wouldn't be able to stand staying in Singapore for more than a week. Though biggest problem is that after a week there's not much to do (for anyone reading along, all the Singaporean colleagues completely agree with me on this!) :-P
Anyway I was talking more about the "liveable" aspects of Singapore. Maybe not a week as a tourist but say living longer than a month there. The night life is pretty boring, the underground scene had dissipated in the 2000s and the art scene is not at all vibrant (though things are gradually improving). I would say it doesn't enjoy lots of things liberal-ish cities (like Berlin, NY, etc) enjoy. But there is stability and comfort. It's just that people that is more liberal-ish would ultimately leave the country and live overseas, or if circumstances allow they would start an NGO or something and try to improve things to have more freedom of expressions, more social acceptance for LGBT, etc. But ultimately it is a very conservative place with things like homophobia and an embedded racism. And that's the point I'm trying to make.
Because that is illegal in Singapore.
Seems very modern and forward thinking to me to make an entire lifestyle punishible by law.
Singapore attracts people like you, who are willing to overlook the glaring injustice because it is "clean and conservative".
Wake up.
You can read my comment in response to bkor's. In no way I was trying to glorify Singapore or the authoritarian nature of things.
I actually left Singapore and moved back to China because there are more acceptance and appreciation for liberalism in China than Singapore. And more grey areas to navigate around too. And I'm one of those people that believe in making a difference in China. Making a difference in Singapore is much harder and requires more resources.
I have a few friends that tried to run some form of NGO in Singapore. One of them did a project called Make It Share It (https://www.facebook.com/makeitshareit2017/) to promote art and freedom of expression. The Project closed down a year plus later due to lack of funding because it was entirely self-funded and they didn't give too much thoughts on the self-sustainability part. I would say it did manage to bring some positive impact to the society a lil but in a very limited way. Afterwards the founders left Singapore and now they got settled down in Berlin.
This is a legitimate question, not sure why the down votes.
In truth a common Western position is that China and Singapore are not equivalent because despite its problems, Singapore still commits fewer human rights violations than China. This position is based on extensive research and observation by multiple NGOs which rank countries by the severity of their human rights violations, as a starter point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
I note from your HN profile that you have a number of professional connections to China. Perhaps it is in your personal interest to support the Chinese state?
Given the other details of your background, it looks like you've probably benefited from living under regimes with much better human rights records than China's. I would encourage you to have compassion for people who are not born with the right to free expression, the right to practice their own religion, etc. and to recognize that China and Singapore are by no means the same.
Not everyone has political motives! I am also not picking sides for or against anyone, unlike what you seem to want to do and what you are trying to paint me as doing. The world isn't black or white.
All that however is immaterial to the observation that you've committed the fallacy of whataboutism, seemingly to discredit critics of China's human rights violations, which you've labeled as political - please consider that for many people the right to not have their organs harvested or be force fed pork is more than just politics.
Respectfully I think this is a poor look for a business leader and graduate of America's elite universities. Or for anyone.
Only way to access this would be through VPN... if everybody in the country uses VPN, they govt would probably start copying the Great firewall of China.
There were perfectly reasonable legal words available to describe fraudulent, false or factually inaccurate statements, it's sad that 'Fake News' has caught on so well as though it is a meaningful term.
The law [1] is broadly worded, and ministers can issue correction orders (which must be complied with immediately) for anything. The affected parties are required to then spend time and money to go through the court system to dispute the order.
[1] https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Acts-Supp/18-2019/Published/20190625?...
Singapore is an english-speaking country, they used valid words to describe "fake news"
http://www.federalgazette.agc.gov.my/outputaktap/20180411_80...
Thankfully, the new government has repealed this ridiculous legislation.
Anyone with first hand knowledge care to comment on this?
I am puzzled because it so happens we might have to do some business in Singapore and a friend was telling me about the business/startup environment. I did a bunch of research and found articles with nothing but praise. Is the truth more nuanced than this?
* Many overseas educated locals helping with cultural cross pollination
* Locals often live with their parents until their late twenties (when they get married), so there are a lot of young people with low personal burn rates
* Lots of government funding and plenty of private capital around as well
* A good amount of big tech companies have offices here
* Major finance hub
* Very business friendly regulations
* Cost of living is reasonably scalable (meaning you can slum it out here or live like a king, depending on your success)
* Good access to Indonesia, Vietnam etc. for talent
* Thriving e-commerce ecosystem in Southeast Asia
* Decent meet up ecosystem
con:
* Rent is expensive (both residential and office space)
* Foreigner visas are not always easy to come by
I might add more later in a separate comment if i can think of more.
America's liberal tradition came from many, many factors over hundreds of years. By comparison, Singapore is still in its infancy. While I don't agree with everything I see here, the system does work.
All that said, I'm applying for permanent residency here, because when I look at what's happening in America, in either major party, I don't have much of a desire to return. At least the Singaporean government is much more honest about what it is. It's not perfect, by any means, and it's expensive to live here, but it's clean and safe, it has the world's best airport, and it is a great place to do business.
Can you explain why it appeals to you? Do the low taxes make up for the limitations on personal liberty?
What are the main pros?
If anyone wants an invite email me at username @ gmail and I will try to send everyone invites (I have like 200) when I get back from JSConf.
> Gab is an English-language social media website known for its far-right user base.[8] The site has been widely described as a "safe haven"[9] for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10]
> The site was launched in 2017 and claimed to have almost 1,000,000 registered user accounts by July 2019.[11] It primarily attracts far-right and alt-right users who have been banned from other social networks.[12][13][14] The platform populace is mainly populated by users who are "conservative, male, and Caucasian".[15] As of 2018, the site's most-followed users included high-profile far-right figures such as Richard B. Spencer, Mike Cernovich, and Alex Jones.[13][15] Gab recognizes far-right websites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars as competitors, according to a March 2018 financial filing.[16][17]
Any other Mastodon/fediverse instance is better than this.
> My early experiences in Singapore and Malaya shaped my views about the claim of the press to be the defender of truth and freedom of speech. The freedom of the press was the freedom of its owners to advance their personal and class interests.
(There follow a few examples of rich individuals forming their own newspapers, to push their preferred politics.)
> In the 1980s, Western-owned English-language publications became a significant presence in Singapore. [...] We have always banned communist publications; no Western media or media organization has ever protested against this. We have not banned any Western newspaper or journal. Yet they frequently refused us the right of reply when they misrepresented us. We decided in 1986 to enact a law to restrict the sale or distribution of foreign publications that had engaged in the domestic politics of Singapore. One of our tests for "engaging in the politics of Singapore" was whether, after they had misreported or slanted stories on Singapore, they refused to publish our reply. We did not ban them, only restricted the number of copies they sold. [...] This would reduce their advertising revenue but did not stop their reports from circulating. They could not accuse us of being afraid to have their reports read.
> Singapore's domestic debate is a matter for Singaporeans. [...] We cannot allow [American journalists] to assume a role in Singapore that the American media play in America. [...] Indeed, America's Federal Communications Commission regulations bar foreigners from owning more than 25 percent of a TV or radio station. Only Americans can control a business which influences opinion in America.
> Advanced in information technology, satellite broadcasting, and the Internet will enable Western media networks to saturate our domestic audience with their reports and views. Countries that try to block the use of IT will lose. We have to learn to manage this relentless flood of information so that the Singapore government's point of view is not smothered by the foreign media.
The memoir is incredibly prescient. Many of the policy debates held in Singapore in the 1980s mirror those held in America over the last three years, as we start to face a tiny fraction of the threats they dealt with daily. I wouldn't be surprised if the very same people who flaunt moral superiority over places like Singapore end up being the ones who take us in the exact same direction.
If Singapore why not every other nation on earth?
It goes without saying that the same is, of course, true for foreign companies in the US.
The alternative would seem to be separate national internets. Data might be imported and exported, but it wouldn't be seamless like today.
You can say you're not subject to a foreign law, but if you want that market, you aren't really immune.
A company should expect to be subject to risk whatever assets it has in a nation and ought to ensure they don't HAVE assets to lose anywhere that is likely to make unreasonable demands or confiscate these assets.
This is because the alternative is only allowing speech that would pass muster in all.
What's likely going to happen is that Facebook complies, but only for visitors from Singapore.
How comical is this coming from Facebook that went all out combating "fake news" but they now they are concerned about arbitrary censorship?