Hacker News Reader

Comment by kylec | Hacker News Reader

I'm surprised at his choice of location - Singapore is quite a nanny state, and the punishments are sometimes quite severe.

"Singapore society is highly regulated through the criminalization of many activities which are considered as fairly harmless in other countries. These include failing to flush toilets after use, littering, jaywalking, the possession of pornography, and the sale of chewing gum."

"Singapore has one of the highest execution rates in the world relative to its population, surpassing Saudi Arabia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law_of_Singapore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland_with_the_death_penal...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offence_of_scandalizing_the_cou...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_(Temporary_Provisi...

View on HN

There are pros and cons of living anywhere. Visit Singapore and you'll encounter some of the cleanest streets on the planet.

I don't mind the "severe" punishments that come down on those that do things like litter, because I don't litter — all in all it doesn't change my behavior for the worse, and only improves the quality of life.

And jaywalking is illegal in the US too.

I'd love to answer any questions about Singapore, if you want to ask them privately (I lived there for several years): sahil@slavingia.com

Clean streets vs. freedom of speech. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

How is anyone's freedom of speech violated if they're not allowed to litter?

You can't possess or view pornography---that's a violation of free speech. There's more.

But the only positive that's trumpeted about singapore is that their streets are clean and their city beautiful. This is good for the tourist, but not necessarily a place you want to move to.

National Geographic ran a special on Singapore a year or so ago and one thing they described was a proliferation of thinly disguised "massage parlors" in malls. In a police state that Singapore is it basically means that these outlets are approved by the government, so the whole pornography issue is really quite multifaceted.

The same special described the general idea behind the chewing gum and jaywalking laws -- it is to whip citizens into the proper shape and to force them to behave decently. An extreme variation of the broken window theory if you will. And to top it off, there might be a government, but there is the father of the nation who, the man who developed the very idea of Singapore. He is in his 70s (?) and it is not clear how things will develop with his passing.

Any Singaporeans here care to comment on NG's take on Singapore? Curious to know how off it is.

Are you equating semi-legal prostitution with the possession of pornography?

I was just in Singapore for 2 weeks. The streets aren't all that clean. Cleaner than San Francisco or NYC yes... but there is litter in the mornings and evenings and this was even in the highly tourist areas downtown by the Marina Bay. (Awesome hotel pool at least, but that's not how I would pick a place to live)

How is pornography related to free speech?

It's an artistic medium. While not speech, it's a means of expression.

If a person wants to distribute recordings of consenting adults having sex to those that want to see it, I see no point in criminalizing them for doing so. It's infringing on a basic human right and I don't understand how anyone could possibly be in support of such a frivolous law.

> I don't understand how anyone could possibly be in support of such a frivolous law.

Because porn is Bad and the law exists to stop Bad things from happening.

"You can't possess or view pornography---that's a violation of free speech."

I'm not sure I can digest that outright. Can you elaborate?

The law is not just about porn, but also other "obscene material" like pro-LGBT material, material critical of the regime (Wired is banned because of this), illegal Bibles etc.

Wired is not banned you can get the UK & US editions in most bookshops. It's just expensive!

Various publications that have been critical of the political environment have been dragged into court to deal with Singapore's not-so-friendly libel laws.

The LGBT situation is culturally more acceptable than it was, but there is still a lot of work to be done.

NB: I am a liberal Brit who lives and works in Singapore (nearly 5 years now)

Ah, sorry. I misintrepreted the information on Wikipedia about the issue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland_with_the_Death_Penal...

I second that. It's a very safe city and I don't mind that minor crimes are taken seriously here [1].

[1] http://nope.se/temp/bike_theft_singapore.jpg

I love the icon at lower right in that sign. Is the cop joining hands with his fellow citizens, or dragging them away?

Red == bad thing == criminals?

>And jaywalking is illegal in the US too.

Depends on where you are. Most cities and college towns in the US don't care where you cross the road so long as you're not doing it recklessly, and places where laws are enforced generally have nothing more than extremely small fines.

I'd rather not live in a society that restricts human liberties to the point of making citizens robotic. Yeah, the US has its share of problems, but chewing gum and porn aren't among them.

My friends Dad, travelling in the US, had the police order him off the street at gun point because he was jaywalking.

I'm sure that is not the typical experience of most people, but I thought it an interesting anecdote after seeing the parents post...

It depends where you are, I know I have jaywalked next to cops without so much as a word from them, but this was on the street next to a college campus.

>> had the police order him off the street at gun point because he was jaywalking.

I simply don't believe your friend's dad was telling the truth. There are plenty of bad cops in the US, but drawing a gun on someone because they were jaywalking? I call bullshit.

Doesn't sound so outlandish to me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjjF55M8JQ

Oh, come on. Jaywalking is nothing at all like doing a wheelie down the freeway at 90+ miles per hour and -- knowingly or unknowingly -- evading the police.

FWIW, the motorcyclist in that video was never once "at gunpoint".

The officer drew his weapon because he did not know how dangerous a situation he would be in with the motorcyclist and he was in a tactically weak position by having to pivot around to face the person he was stopping. He never pointed the gun at the motorcyclist and quickly reholstered it after assessing the situation was non-threatening. And as you can see in the full video, the traffic stop was totally warranted, the idiot on the motorcycle was a danger to himself and everyone else on the road:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7PC9cZEWCQ

There are plenty of bad cops out there caught on video doing horrendous things, but I don't get why anyone would use this as an example of bad police behavior -- the cop in this video was totally reasonable and professional.

True he wasn't technically at gun point.

However, how was the rider a threat to anyone by that point? He couldn't run the officer down like you could with a car (he would just end up on the ground). He was boxed in.

I would also challenge the notion that the rider is an 'idiot' and a danger to himself or others. Of the 3m39s long video, there's only about 10 seconds (starting at about 0:35) where he accelerates significantly faster than the surrounding cars, and that was clearly to get around a group of cars/transport trucks. Otherwise, he was going just slightly faster than the general flow of traffic. Both of these tactics are basically inline with conventional motorcycle safety recommendations: http://www.sportrider.com/ride/146_9508_motorcycle_riding_ti...

Also, it appears that the officer is hiding his gun when the marked cop car pulls up behind them. I think it's worth pointing out that they charged the rider with wire tapping (which the judge ultimately threw out) and raided his house after discovering the video had been posted on YouTube. It's hard not to interpret these actions as embarrassment on the part of the police. Why would they object to the video being posted if he was completely justified?

The video wouldn't be approaching a million views on YouTube if most people agreed that his actions were as reasonable and mundane as you imply. He didn't show his badge or even identify himself as a police officer until after charging at the guy with gun in hand. That doesn't strike me as 'professional'.

I read the entire page you linked and I can't find the recommendation that states that after having just cut off a tractor trailer and wishing to pass a bus, you should pop a wheelie while accelerating at a very high rate of speed... but it must be in there somewhere, right?

If he dumps on that wheelie, you're looking at a multiple vehicle pileup involving a motorcycle, a tractor trailer, a bus, and other cars. It is virtually a given that people(including but not limited to the motorcyclist) will die.

The motorcyclist in this video is a total prick and if you don't see any of the many things he did wrong (both in the sense of being illegal and just plain dangerous/stupid) in that video you must not be paying attention.

I'm not sure how you're defining 'cut-off' but there's no way he forced the transport truck to brake. There was ample space between the vehicles by the time he changed lanes since the motorcycle was accelerating quickly at that point.

Granted it's not recommended, but the likelihood of an experienced rider going down from a short, low wheelie like that is quite low. Saying that it is likely to lead to a pile-up and multiple deaths is hyperbole hardly worth addressing. Pile-ups almost always involve inclement weather.

Anyway, it's no more dangerous than the countless drivers I see chatting on their cell phones, disciplining their children in the back, eating lunch, etc. -- activities that probably the majority of drivers engage in at some point.

I see you've never been to Baltimore

I was arrested, cuffed, and pinned down in Vancouver, Canada for jaywalking (in a small stretch of road in GasTown). And btw, you don't get arrested or fined in Singapore for jaywalking. Cuz there's tons of jaywalkers in Singapore. Many more than Vancouver and I have never seen anyone got arrested before or fined.

Yes, you can be fined, it usually happens at specific places.

People just have to be smart when jaywalking. Like everything else.

I know that this is a bit late to the discussion, but I'd like to add that the police officer pulled the gun after my friends Dad (who is Australian) had been told off by the cop for jaywalking, he immediately turned around and started to jaywalk again because he thought the cop was being an ass.

"I don't mind if X is illegal because I don't X."

"I don't mind if the state thinks I did X because I don't X."

There is a crucial difference between these two things and it's why any sane nation avoids applying draconian punishments for mundane offenses. Basically, the state realizes it could be wrong and hedges its bets. The Singapore state doesn't consider that, and it should give anyone living there or planning to go pause. Even if you don't care for the guilty, remember that no judicial system will always convict only the guilty.

i live in both sf and singapore (50/50), and i am actually very much in support of these rules.

my only grouse is the suppressed political scene, and i am glad that even that is being lifted in a slow but steady manner. and trust me, 90% of my friends have criticized the government in a very public manner on facebook/twitter. last i checked, they are still running around town and still complaining.

do not believe 90% of what you hear about singapore - it is actually a very open and welcoming place, quirky punishments not withstanding.

I've never heard executing people referred to as "quirky".

Lots of countries execute people. The US, for example. So I think it's unfair to single out Singapore in that regard, even if you're against capital punishment.

Or beating people with canes until the meat is hanging off the butt and legs. Cruel, but not quirky.

A few years back I was at Singapore's airport and I saw, along many other signs forbidding most human activities one which still haunts me at night. There was this symbol of a person reading and the text was: no studying.

Then one day while I was walking down Orchard road I saw a long line of people quieing on the street to get in...Sweansens (a chain crappy ice-cream store). That's when I decided Singapore was lost.

What scares me the is most is that all the rest of South East Asia aspires to become a big Singapore. Human beings are not supposed to live like that.

Sounds like the good thing about Singapore seems to be that is successfully drives out people who go to pieces over others queueing for ice-cream... they must be doing something right there B-)

yep, their filter works :) but my point was not "queueing for ice-cream" rather "queueing for shitty industrial ice-cream". I would queue hours for good ice cream. I mean, they were driven there by some sick marketing effort, brain washed into thinking that there was something there worth the wait.

Imagine people queuing to get in McDondalds in your city. Dou feel it now? That's what I felt. Scary....

There's always a line when I go to McDonald's, especially in the city. Usually not out to the street but at least 10-15 people long. Think about Best Buy or Walmart on Black Friday - people are on the streets camping for days. Same with an Apple product launch, people get there many hours ahead (even though they usually have enough for everyone).

There's sick marketing and commercial brain-washing, if you call it that, going on all over the world.

ok, my fault. I said "a line" and failed to mention "a line of at least 100 people". It's fine to queue for good deals, or products you are passionate about but these guys were going to wait at least one hour to get some low quality ice cream on the most exclusive road in Singapore. I thought (of course I may be wrong) that they were not there for the ice-cream, the price or the atmosphere, but because they wanted a piece Orchard road "experience". And they were ready to wait a long time for it. The thing is the Orchard road experience is not experience at all. It's just shopping malls. I don't know Singapore well (I do know Asia quite well) but the impression I get each time I go there is that life is only about working and shopping. It's a clean and fine city and it's a model for the rest of Asia, but each time I am happy to go back to the rest of Asia with its for sure dirty and messy but at least it has some depth.

could have been a field trip. could have been free ice cream day. maybe there was a deal for students. and yeah, people everywhere like crap.

That reminds me of the infamous Halal Guy's gyro cart located at 53rd and 6th in Manhattan. The food is sub-par at best but there is always a line of 30+ (I've seen nearly 100 before) people who, at least I think, are there for the experience more than anything.

There are literally dozens of other gyro carts scattered about the vicinity, some with much better food, yet that cart consistently has a huge line.

I imagine that "no studying" should really be read as "no loitering." Or perhaps "this is not the place to come and read all day, please, there are other people who need to use this space." It was probably a problem.

I've seen such signs at cheap chain restaurants in Japan. (I'm not attempting to generalize here, just relating an experience) The clear message was that high schoolers would come and buy the $3 all-you-can-drink soda package and sit and study and chat all day. Hence, no studying. Seems reasonable enough. Many places don't have that rule though, and there you can see many people studying all day.

It is common for students who go to Changi Airport studying and gathering. It became problem for the business owners because they are holding on to seats for long hours. The sign you see are put up by the business owners. Similarly you can see such sign at downtown at Starbucks for example. As for the Swenson, the queue is there not because Singaporean are crazy about Swenson. It is just that it is the cheapest western food restaurant the young can afford in Orchard Rd. That was few years back and I think the place is no more btw.

Did you live in Singapore or just stopover?

ok, thanks for the explanation! Actually I imagined there was a good reason. Now it won't hunt me anymore :)

> It is just that it is the cheapest western food restaurant the young can afford in Orchard Rd Ok, I see. Anyway, it was a very long queue, at least 100 people. I know, I probably sound too judgemental, but it looked a bit too much to me.

I was there for a few days, I have lived in Asia a lot and in many places (Bangkok right now).

A week ago, I was at SFO and saw the TSA body-scanning children and elderly people.

Then one day I saw a long line of people on the street to get in... an Apple store.

That's when I decided San Francisco was lost.

Yes, America is going the way of Singapore. I advise people who ask to avoid both.

I used to manage a team in Singapore when with Lockheed and would go there regularly.

It is one of my favorite cities on the planet.

I took a sabbatical in 2000/2001 for six months and backpacked through asia - I spent 2 months in singapore then as well.

The laws and strictness of the place is greatly exaggerated from my perspective -- if your not doing crazy stuff, you have nothing to worry about.

The city is AMAZING -- and is the FUTURE of cities; they have taken massive infrastructure projects to prepare for more than doubling their population by 2020 - and they build massive underground connective malls and walking causeways.

The city has an incredibly high density of plant life (trees and greenery) and it makes an impact when you visit. Many of the buildings have a large setback from roads where they have trees and grass and planters between the buildings and roads. This is really a wonderful civil engineering trait of the place and makes the city much more beautiful than dense urban dirty environments we see in american cities.

In my opinion, if you ever watch much anime -- Singapore is the city that will most closely resemble that which you see in anime.

I love Singapore - the only thing I dont like is how freaking hot/humid it can get.... and the cost of living.

I've visited Singapore twice. I've settled in Australia, originally from Europe.

I was really worried when I visited Singapore and took their 'tourist' tour. They put you in a bus, drive you around all jetlagged and give you orange juice on the beach. Completely surreal.

What really put me off was their unconditional love for their government. The woman 'tour guide' in the bus just couldn't stop thanking the government for giving them so much. It was unhealthy. Yet they don't own anything and they live in towers. Sure it was really pretty but it freaked me out a little. I felt a deep communism in this pro-capitalist ex-colony.

I'm no die hard capitalist but I prefer the australian way of owning my own life and freely talking crap of the government.

s/communism/totalitarianism/g and you'll make better sense.

Thank you, I hate it when the two are used interchangeably.

In practice they go hand-in-hand

I know many totalitarian regimes that aren't communist.

Communist countries tend to be totalitarian, the reverse isn't true.

That was the tour guide -- you get a completely different version of things in a candid discussion with friends who live there.

I am by no means an expert on the politics there at all, but if one thinks that the us political system is not more corrupt at the highest levels then is simply delusional -- yet life is good for most of us in the US.

I think that one can create a bit of there reality and are not 100% subjected to the douchebaggery of their government, same goes for singapore -- just dont make the cardinal mistake (which applies equally globally) of being poor.

Yes, but protesting isn't illegal in the us.

No, it's just restricted to "Free Speech Zones".

Australians have no constitutional right to free speech, and some forms of speech are expressly criminalised via the sedition and various vilification acts.

The only form of speech that enjoys some protection is political speech. So whilst Australian's can freely talk crap about the government, Australia is far from a beacon of free speech.

Are you referring to rights of anarchism?

I'm no trespasser and trouble maker, but I can tell you that anybody is free to do whatever they intend to in Australia, so as long as it doesn't impair other people doing so. In other words, you're as free as you can be without causing damage to others. I'm not sure what you're referring to though.

On my way home I saw dudes roller-blading half naked in the city. I call that freedom. Do you have examples?

No. I'm referring to the constitutional right to free speech.

The statement "anybody is free to do whatever they intend to in Australia, so as long as it doesn't impair other people doing so" is as absurd as it is false.

There are reams of legislation to prevent you from doing everything from arriving unlawfully by boat, to lying about your income, to using a wire carriage service to cause offence.

As to speech, here is a simplistic example: Let's say I walk into Federation Square and say to you "Go and burn down the Parliament, you useless white cunt!" Depending on who takes offence to my comments I can be:

a) Issued an on the spot fine for AUD$238.50 for using language likely to cause offence in a public place.

b) Prosecuted for racial vilification.

c) Prosecuted for sedition.

The fact that all but a) are highly unlikely does nothing to progress the case that "anybody is free to do whatever they intend to in Australia".

I'm sorry, but I think you are confused regarding what constitutes free speech. Either that, or a very poor example you chose...

I assure you I am not confused as to what constitutes free speech.

In the comment to which you replied I'm merely countering the claim that "anybody is free to do whatever they intend to in Australia, so as long as it doesn't impair other people doing so", with respect to speech.

Mind you, I did admit the example was simplistic, but it captured the essence of the three most contentious classes of prohibited speech without verbosity.

The only claims I have made with respect to free speech are that:

a) Australians have no constitutional right to free speech.

b) There are laws that criminalise certain kinds of speech.

c) There is no constitutional impediment to the creation of new laws which criminalise other forms of speech.

d) Political speech enjoys some protection.

Free speech means being free to say things others might not like being said.

If free speech only covers things that others might find acceptable, then it is completely meaningless.

I live in a poor neighborhood in Indiana (USA) (ah, but the house was cheap) and I would really like point (a). Speaking personally.

I call that limited. If he was naked then it would be truly freedom, freedom to be a human.

Remember that in Australia, the constitution isn't as foundational as it is in the USA. Just because it's not in the constitution doesn't mean that it's not enshrined in the consciousness of the people.

I come from New Zealand, and although there's a lot of rivalry between Australia and New Zealand, I nevertheless consider Australia to be a second home -- even though I've only been there twice.

Consciousness or not, it's not enshrined in law.

What is enshrined in law, however, is that certain types of speech are a criminal offence. Further, there is no constitutional impediment to Parliament passing legislation which criminalises other forms of speech.

And the American Congress routinely ignores its constitution with the complicity of the Supreme Court. What's your point? Are you suggesting that a constitution is enough? It's matter of who gets elected too, you know.

The Australian constitution kind of claims New Zealand.

An Australian friend of mine mentioned that some time ago the British government dissolved the Australian government with a phone call. Can they still do that?

When you take a look around Singapore's neigbor countries and their living conditions, you must admit that the Sing' government did a pretty good job so far. And then there is the asian culture of not being to critical to the "superior". You even have that in democratic Japan and SKorea. Talking crap about the gov is more a Western life style (mine too, 'cause I m from Europe too, but have lived in Asia long enough to know that there are different ways of seing things).

And talking about free speech: Have a look at the Internet censorship laws in Australia!

At the moment, the only part of the internet in Australia that is censored by law are some usenet groups.

I think we really need to watch out when we label certain sorts of thing Western. I know it usually comes from an attempt to be culturally sensitive, but it's just not true and potentially harmful.

Gender equality is not rooted in Western culture. It sucked being a woman equally in Glasgow, Shanghai & Algiers. Gender equality was spread with difficulty and imperfectly over a decade in throughout liberal democracies and communist countries. It skipped the third world, but gender equality is no more part of Spanish culture then it is Qatari.

Same for "western" democracy, western medicine and a big chuck of western values.

It wasn't cool to criticize kings or dictators anywhere at some point.

Western culture does include the changes since the enlightenment era and forward, you realize? Culture isn't static, and gender equality has become a part of western culture -- at least in principle. Similarly, freedom of speech has slowly become a part of western culture, although it has a way to go as well.

This wasn't always the case, but that doesn't disqualify the current situation.

On gender equality, you speak in terms of black and white when in reality there are many shades of grey. For example, you say it "skipped the third world" but I think if you've ever been to the Philippines, which is usually classified as a third world country, you'd see that women have just as many rights and freedoms as in some Western countries. Filipino women can become doctors and engineers, and many have jobs in government.

That's true. I painted with a broad brush. There are even examples of gender equality in traditional cultures. Not all 1st or 2nd world countries as far along the way either. The 3rd world grouping here is pretty arbitrary to my point.

Sure. Its not genetic or anything. Critical views towards authority have developed in the West in the past 500 years, with the rise of protestantism (as in "you talk to God yourself and not through some father figure mediator") and later through Enlightenment (as in "use your brain, goddamit!"). It took us quite a while and quite a bit of luck, too, to get where we are today.

Most of those things did not happen elsewhere. Hence my comment above.

I'm not sure that if you go back to post reformation or post enlightenment Europe you'd be doing any better than countries where those movements did not take place. Racial oppression the US between its founding (Jefferson & Paine or not) and relatively recently was awful. Women's suffrage and social equality spread over the 19th century, 200 years after Kant.

Check out indian politics - for a real taste of chaotic democracy in action. Here folks get to talk crap about a whole bunch of governments - from city, state and national - and there's a whole bunch of 'em to talk crap about - unlike the two-party plutocracy of the US, as one point of contrast.

The cities in anime I suspect you are referring to are almost exclusively dystopias. The things that enthuse you about the city make me certain I would not like it, perhaps even less than I like American cities. I like my cities with history and layering, nooks and crannies as well as new growths.

Well, in principle I agree.

I've never even been to Singapore, but I know some people that used to work there. They loved it so much that they put lots of energy and time into getting back.

I don't know what Singapore do right, but I have never heard anyone be so enthusiastic by some place they didn't grow up(/study).

Westerners who've never lived there and wouldn't be in any danger of suffering any of this "harsh" treatment love to complain about Singapore.

Visit sometime with an open mind.

It's hard to visit with an open mind when you would risk several years in prison for doing what you would at home. Capital punishment is required for being in the company with someone possessing a small amount of weed. "Obscene material" gives you prison up to three months, 21 years if you make it avaliable to someone under 21. If you watch the movie Milk with someone under 21 years old, you risk 21 years in prison. All members of Jehovas Witnesses were imprisioned in 2004. Richard Dawkins would probably have been sentenced for long imprisonment without a trial.

Richard Dawkins would probably have been sentenced for long imprisonment without a trial

Can you elaborate?

The two most relevant acts are The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and The Sedition Act. Both allow for prison sentences for saying things that could be percieved as offensive. In 2006 a young blogger were detained for posting cartoons of Jesus.

>>Capital punishment is required for being in the company with someone possessing a small amount of weed.

Capital punishment is meted out to persons who possess or have reasonable knowledge of someone who possesses or deals in drugs. Do I agree with it? No. But it's very far from your claim. There is due process of law.

>>All members of Jehovas Witnesses were imprisioned in 2004.

The reason for this is because Singapore has a conscripted army. All male citizens are required to spend 2+ years of their lives in service of their country. They are liable to be called up for service any time up till they are 40, or 50 in the case of officers. Jehovah's Witnesses renounce bearing arms and thus their religion is in direct conflict with statute. They are not "imprisoned" in the sense of "rehabilitation" or "punishment". They are confined, so yes there are restrictions on their movement, and are given duties such as gardening, cooking etc. They are free men after they have performed the equivalent length of time as a regular citizen in the armed forces.

Edit: typos

It's the somewhat the same in Finland and many other countries. Here you can choose between 6 months of service in the military, 12 months of alternative service or go to prison for 6 months. While there are many up sides in conscription I still feel it's against human rights.

If they're treated like other pacifists, then why are their bibles banned?

You are absolutely wrong, they are for a fact imprisoned. Read : http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108423.htm Search for Jehovah witness. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovahs_Witness... search for Singapore.

And I've personally observed these Jehovah's Witnesses in the grounds of detention barracks. Let me ask you then: what would you do to apply the conscription law equally? There is no "escape clause" even for sons of state officials. All males have to go through it and the citizenry have come to see it as a rite of passage.

I worked for a startup for three years whose small sAPAC headquarters moved from Sydney to Singapore. I was young, enthusiastic and very well performing (I was measured in my job each week by customers).

I found most of the Singaporean staff I met

a) thought I was slightly crazy

b) either loved me, or hated me

for the same reason: I didn't slavishly adhere to rules, particularly when it came to giving customers what they wanted. If the entire (US founded) company had that idea the company wouldn't exist at all: particularly when you're a small company competing with giants, flexibility is required to win business. Singapore suffers from the India problem: they're technically talented, but the adherence to authority means they don't produce many innovative companies.

Here we come to the nub of the matter, at least for the average HN reader: a country which is characterised by slavish obedience to authority and a willingness to trade off autonomy and the right to do something that may offend others for "social order" is a country which is very unlikely to foster a robust start-up culture.

Start-ups rely on the willingness of founders and investors to be bold, break the rules, and act without concern for what others may think. This, in turn, requires a society which embraces disorder, spontaneity and a certain degree of rebelliousness.

It's not an accident that the two countries with the most robust start-up scenes are the US and Israel, both characterised by messy and sometimes annoying individualism, robust debate, and intellectual ferment.

It's hard to be believe that a nation like Singapore, whose citizens happily trade off freedom of speech for trivialities like clean streets and the "freedom" of people not to be offended will be capable of producing the kind of rough-and-tumble Darwinian business environment and culture in which start-ups flourish.

An aside: my read of the Indian national character is that is much closer to that of the Americans than that of the Singaporese: individualistic, pluralistic, and tolerant of disorder and creativity. These is, of course, much to still be achieved in India, but I think the vector is pointed in the right direction.

I grew up in .sg, and it really challenged my notion of democracy as a universal good. The benevolent dictatorship there seems to have things figured out pretty well, while most democracies in the region are flailing in comparison. (or should I say alleged democracies perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman, etc.)

Of course, "benevolent dictatorship" is not a form of government; it's just a dictatorship that happens to be benevolent right now, but I have a feeling the honor/shame-based values of a Confucian society may have an advantage as far as their ability to produce benevolent rulers.

Are you still here or travel back regularly? Would love to meet up.

I used to visit every so often, but my folks moved to Penang.

laws are only for the undesired.

here in california I'm a criminal for having a gps on my wind shield. but as long as I'm not a minority/pissing an officer/disturbing the status quo/etc, I'm fine.

"to my friends everything.to my enemies, the law."

It is legal to have a GPS on your windshield in California.

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm section 12

...on the most inconvinient spots.

also, what if it have back up camera or radar detection? both features pretty common but outlawed.

Wouldn't most people have a GPS on their dashboard?

The same with people with expensive cars not having front plates. When was the last time you saw a new Corvette with the front plates in california?

as I said, you only have to worry with petty laws if you are not rich.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com