Man fined for sharing a Facebook link ruled as defamation in Singapore
restofworld.org
restofworld.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._Jeyaretnam#Defamation_su...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chee_Soon_Juan#2002%E2%80%9320...
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/sep/03/pressandpublis...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2009/11/singapore-def...
Not a complete list, but that's the "precedent", not this.
Could upvoting this hackernews article count as defamation? It's not the same as sharing it, but it would still make the original article more visible to more people.
Singapore has an opposite standard for public figures. In the US you can defame or libel public figures and our precedent considers first amendment concerns to be exculpatory in most circumstances. E.g. I can say "Cillary Hinton killed Beffery Jepstein" without being held liable for defamation, although if I made the same type of accusation against a nonpublic figure like my neighbor that caused actual damages, I could be lose my shirt in any state court for defamation. I could also be held liable for defamation if I was merely restating what I had heard elsewhere or read in a libelous article. That is not a valid defense. There have indeed been defamation cases involving Facebook posts that resulted in substantial judgments or costly settlements here in the US (example: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/facebook_comment_lea...)
As some others have said, just because another country has different standards around a body of law doesn't necessarily mean that their interpretation is right and ours is wrong. The American interpretation of the first amendment and its applicability to defamatory statements against public figures could change, and it wasn't the same as it is now in previous eras of American history. NYT v. Sullivan is not the Constitution or one of the tablets handed down to Moses: it's a lot easier to reverse.
and that case was a statement, not a reshare.
Also, the parties to the lawsuit were involved in a dispute over control of a business, making it more complicated.
There is an innocent dissemination defense [1], but that requires you to show you did due diligence to avoid defamation.
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
This applies to users who quote or forward a message as well as to sites that host a message. But there are some exceptions to section 230, and law is complex, so I may have missed something about defamation.
Section 230 is like one sentence, btw. It’s interpretation has a long and complex history now though.
“ under a plain reading of the statute it is clear that retweeting falls within the confines of Section 230’s immunity [...] Unsurprisingly, Reid’s attorneys signaled that she intended to argue just that in response to the complaint filed against her. Faced with the prospect of this hurdle, the plaintiff promptly dropped Reid’s retweet cause of action from the suit, although she has maintained her claims against Reid for allegedly false statements made after the retweet.“
It absolutely does reply to users foe actions which merely effect the visibility of materials others have posted, like simple retweets, provided they have an arms-length relationship with the original poster (if they actively solicited the submission and then retweeted it, that’s potentiallt different.)
Aside: retweeting doesn't obviously expose a URL, but in the similar scenario of dissemination by actual URL, I wonder if slugs therein would change things because then the downstream participant is actually themselves writing defamatory words (but I guess since the upstream participant specified those words first, even that is merely quoting existing info, not writing new info).
It doesn’t.
It says that in certain cases, they would by so doing be liable as a publisher of thr defamatory content.
> but section 230 says an individual can do so without repercussions
Section 230, with some exceptions, says that neither the service provider nor other users will be consider publishers of material submitted by a user. So, any liability they would have as the publisher of that material does bot exist, so long as the other conditions set for Section 230 safe harbor apply.
If the individual in question shared the link with a disparaging comment then they would have most likely been fine.
I'm not necessarily defending the use of defamation law here just commenting on how it might analysed in law. IANAL :)
The person in the linked article was being sued for defamation.
I wonder if there are better lists that sort countries by actual freedom?
I'm always surprised that Singapore ranks so highly in economic freedoms as the government is linked to around 20% of the companies listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange and has a massive hand in public housing [3].
[1] - https://rsf.org/en/singapore
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chee_Soon_Juan#2002%E2%80%9320...
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_and_Development_Board
Singapore is great by most metrics that are simple to measure, like how many pages a tax return is, how fast the broadband is, how many channels of hi-def television there, how reliable the trains are, how long you have to wait in line to get a driver's license, etc, etc.
However, those are actually very superficial, and more subjective, and ultimately more consequential metrics aren't captured. Things like whether the broadband is censored or not, whether there's anything interesting on TV, whether the locale around any two train stations are any different, how much a car costs once you have your license and whether there's anywhere interesting to drive...
Singapore is a poster child for what happens when you just manage and optimize all the easily measured metrics.
Other freedoms are totally different matter, and we may find Singapore way below most of countries here
If you accept defamation laws (and defamation laws are a thing in Singapore and many other places), then the question is whether you actively participated in the creation or dissemination of slander (again, assuming that creation and dissemination are both illegal).
We in the tech world have optimized various mechanisms to enable sharing information- we have gotten so good at it that our users don’t pause for a moment and think about their responsibility they bear when hitting that share button.
It’s like picking up cleanly packaged meat from the grocery store or filling up on gas from a gas station- the experience is so clean and polished that one doesn’t really think about where the meat/crude oil is coming from and what it means to be paying for it.
I think the courts held that one is responsible for what they share. It isn’t “merely” sharing a news article on facebook - the person had to decide to hit that share button.
Now, there are a lot of things wrong with this. But most of the problems come from having some defamation law to begin with.
I take issue with the law itself, but this interpretation of it doesn’t bother me.
IANAL, and I don’t know if dissemination is somehow different from creation in defamation cases. I expect it has to be - otherwise “Mr. X is a pedophile” can be illegal while “I heard that Mr. X is a pedophile” isn’t. Which seems dumb if one’s intent was to make defamation illegal in all ways.
"In 2013, a defendant named Alan Davies was ordered to pay £15,000 in settlement after retweeting a Sally Bercow tweet that suggested Lord McAlpine, a former leading Conservative politician, had committed child abuse." [1]
"Defamation is apparent when one person publishes a statement or material about another person that is untrue and is damaging to the claimant’s reputation or likely to cause such harm – this is the case even if the defendant has simply republished a statement made by another." [1]
[1] https://www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/distinction-in-defamation-slan...
The law needs to be updated for this nuance.
Is giving a magazine (containing a defamatory article) to a friend Publishing?
However, a guy has to wonder what the odds are of the state levying such a fine in defence of an ordinary citizen.
But this is Singapore, it's not a very free country.
The defendant, Roy Ngerng [1], is often portrayed in Singapore media as a troublemaker, and has been the subject of multiple defamation suits.
Politicians in Singapore's incumbent party seem to mainly use defamation against politicians, activists, and the media, and very rarely against a random person on the street.
It seems to boil down to the government needing to protect their integrity, as former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said in a 1999 interview [2]:
> There are many critics of the PAP in Singapore. They are not all hauled up before the judiciary. Political opponents, so long as they keep within the law, don't need safeguards. They do not have to appear before the judiciary. But if they've defamed us, we have to sue them -- because if we don't, our own integrity will be suspect. We have an understanding that if a minister is defamed and he does not sue, he must leave cabinet. By defamation, I mean if somebody says the minister is on the take or is less than honest. If he does not rebut it, if he does not dare go before the court to be interrogated by the counsel for the other side, there must be some truth in it. If there is no evidence, well, why are you not suing?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Ngerng
[2] http://edition.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/interview/goh.chok.t...
What about newspaper stands that sold the libelous paper?
I think it's clear this ruling is totally incompatible with a free press and free speech. Only the original source should be held accountable.
Also note that I'm more interested in what is moral/just, not legal according to any specific system, since this is a discussion about laws which vary across nations. The American/English system isn't necessarily ideal.
I recently found a subreddit where people had shared an article from a newspaper with a decent reputation. The story strongly implied that the government had engaged in crony capitalism. 96% upvoted, all the comments castigating the government. Normally I would have agreed and moved on. I certainly wouldn't have spent time fact checking an article that I agreed with. Except it was about something I knew a bit about (solar energy). The article was wrong and misleading. Perhaps even "fake", considering how many people had been misled.
When I tried to correct the record on the same subreddit, there was huge pushback. People nitpicked my fact check to death. It got a small fraction of the upvotes and comments the original fake/misleading article did.
None of those people did the due diligence, like you want them to. All of them took a journalist working for a reputable newspaper at face value. Should they all go to jail now for upvoting and commenting?
Defamation is not a criminal offense. Nobody goes to jail for defamation. You can be sued for damages from defamation in civil court.
I never said what I wanted, or gave any opinion. I'm just adding a bit of color to the conversation by stating relevant facts. The accusatory tone is not very conducive to interesting discussion.
More to your question, I highly doubt upvoting a reddit post counts as dissemination / publishing. The comments people wrote could themselves be defamatory, but I also doubt a reddit comment will cause demonstrable damages to a person's reputation. There has to be damages for you be sued, otherwise there is no reason for the suit.
I don't know the article you are referring to, but something to the general effect of "The government did a bad thing" is not defamation either. Again, you have to cause demonstrable damages to an individual for them to win a suit against you. If the article was something closer to "The government did a bad thing, This is the person responsible, This is where he lives, Let's get him fired", or if the reddit comments were of that flavor (as they often are), the case for defamation is a little stronger.
Since we're in a thread about Singapore…
Criminal defamation [1] is a thing here. :)
Of course, Singapore is famous for actually using it, but still, in many parts of the world defamation can technically be a criminal offence even if in practice the legal risk is low..
Also if the purpose is to reduce the amount of blatant lies and misinformation I don't know that it would be very helpful as it seems like most of it actually has a byline just not one that any reasonable person would trust.
Forcing users to check for a byline and nothing else to avoid accidentally opting in to financial destruction wouldn't help much. Your idea needs expanding.
I see an additional test for the sharer as to whether they had reasonable expectation of knowing the information they were sharing was false and misleading.
Sharing from “Totally True News” (where sensational articles have no author and no source are quoted); that “you as a public figure are drinking the blood of babies.”
Comes to mind as probably valid ground to seek redress for defamation.
What about the case that you shared it after it was shown that the story was made up, and it can be proved that you knew this at the time?
What about the case that we find out the reason that the article was made up was that you fed the writer false information, in order to shield yourself from prosecution?
Bright line distinctions are difficult.
And there is the problem. While you propose an interesting academic question, the chain of events starts from a law that I see as harmful. Therefore, there's no value in justifying the legitimacy of the next steps.
If I start a campaign, billboards and all, saying that my doctor is a pedophile once convicted of rape in Australia who has been also implicated in organ trafficking (when she's actually very wonderful) then I should be held liable for the damage to her career and reputation, at a minimum.
Slander and libel are illegal, but the threshold at which the law takes effect depends on how public the target is.
As such care has to be taken when making statements about a private citizen, e.g. "Mr. X is [something horrible]", but one can say almost anything about a public figure like the president, or senators, without fear of legal trouble.
And that's just how minors are treated.
Based on your example, I guess that's not how it always works, but there's no reason in principle why the laws and legal standard around it could not be fixed to be more fair.
There's also the concept of a "limited-purpose public figure", which means that just commenting on something can make you a public figure in certain contexts. For example, if you were to merely say that I was a pedophile, you probably have defamed a private individual. However, if you replied to this post with something like, "You probably just think defamation law is good because you're a pedophile that doesn't want to get caught"; defamation law could take your side. After all, I joined this particular controversy by commenting on it, that makes me a limited-purpose public figure. So even if you're not a public figure, it's very easy to accidentally become one.
Australian views on this should therefore NOT be taken as a norm.
That can absolutely be the basis for slander and defamation though.
There is another important question: intention. In the US, "for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case in the United States, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth" [1].
It seems to me that most of the problems come not from having the defamation law to begin with like you said, but from the law applying even to defendants who believed the information they were creating or disseminating was true.
Being disrespectful to your boss, and those higher up the authority chain, is a strong cultural taboo. Authority is respected. It's complicated for us Westerners to understand, and totally goes against how we view the world and our place in it. But that's the culture, and changing it because it doesn't agree with ours would be wrong.
So yes, the US defamation law is right for the US. It's probably not right for Singapore. I'm not sure Singapore's actual law is "right" - this article and the popular support for the defendant in this case shows it may not be. But that doesn't mean they would be better off with the US version.
It is different. Opinion is also exempted. I don’t think that’s dumb at all. Otherwise it would be impossible to report on a controversy without risking a lawsuit.
I'm struggling with my opinion about this case - imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good?
On the other hand, powerful politicians suppressing dissent with crippling lawsuits tramples all over free speech and open debate. I'm from Canada so we don't have a hardline free speech movement like the USA but it is vital to democracy to be able to have discussions freely.
What I do think is that the penalty in this case was much too large for simply sharing a link, citizens must be able to criticize their public figures without fearing a penalty that is some multiple of their annual salary, and the average person can't be expected to have a fact checking department on staff to verify every link they share with their social media friends.
Strange times.
Who decides that it’s bullshit though? The government? Or maybe interested-party-backed “fact checkers”?
Accepting that, it becomes a question of where do you draw that line.
1) I do not have perfect knowledge. 2) Good, or at least better, ideas will implicitly produce better results over long periods. 3) It is immoral to control the lives of others. 4) Therefore, people can argue for ideas they find compelling, and people are free to choose what they think is best. 5) Furthermore, people must bear the consequences of their decisions.
A further part of this system was that it was necessary for society to be structured such that individual choices do not have an outsized impact on others. This required that the apparatus of the state have specific constraints. It was quite a remarkable belief system, and much has been written about it over centuries.
Technology has changed that rather dramatically.
Not true. Defamation suits still have to go through due process in the courts.
I think perhaps this is a misrepresentation of the requirement (that exists even in places like Singapore) that one be skeptical by default of any claim made by the media.
"Cui bono?"
Penalties for what the court system deems misinformation absolutely do not solve the problem: indeed they make it worse.
That being said the court case in question is draconian.
I think one of the bigger things that makes Singapore so much easier to govern with consensus is the density. It's 5.7 million people packed onto a 30x20km island. There isn't much in the way of urban/rural divide or of different federal-level divisions having competing resource concerns, etc.
I'm in Canada as well an while I do not like many things in the US when comparing to Canada I am absolutely on their side when it comes to things like freedom of speech and things like Bill of Rights.
Formally due to notwithstanding clause I do not think we have any rights at all as the government basically can override our rights any time it feels like. Sure it does not do it every other Monday but still it's been used something like 15 times and recently our provincial wizards like Legault and Ford just showed what does this Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms mean for them - apparently zilch.
> all this “believe experts” dogma is legit indistinguishable from the rhetoric of evangelical christians. ffs please just go to church and leave science to the skeptical assholes.
- https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1381237434512502784?s=2...
"Believe the people who will explain themselves to a degree you'll understand, and who change their opinion when new information is presented." is a more complete way of expressing that thought. There are other ways of expressing that thought, I wouldn't be surprised if `pg has an essay on this.
Skeptics are right to be skeptical, but what "skeptic" usually means in modern culture is, "intransigent". The line between healthy skepticism and dogmatic rejection of basic reasoning has blurred substantially.
A better option would be to eschew certainty. Stop trying to "know" things, and get comfortable making decisions based on an incomplete understanding of information.
It's really this obsession with certainty that keeps getting people into trouble.
People need to do their best to judge how trustworthy a source is, and make their own decisions, but remain open to conflicting information if their trustworthy sources are later found to be wrong. And people also need to accept that any decision they make based on that information isn't 100% certain.
It is exactly like OSS. Not every user can audit the code, nor should we expect them to. But it's there and we hope that someone is.
And I think that Christians over the centuries have had very good critiques of both amid the wars and persecutions.
The experts are not necessarily reliable, may be corrupt, need to have checks and balances.
But the average person is not as smart, not as educated, and can be led astray.
It's a never ending conflict because there is no simple answer as to which is best.
That largely depends on who is choosing what is "disinformation", normally if government (or corporations) is involved "disinformation" normally becomes "things that we do not like" which would not be a net good
Sure, but who cares? Just doing what is a 'net good' isn't a good enough yard stick for whether you should actually do it.
Imagine a society where the weak or infirm are culled at [or before] birth. Wouldn't that be a net good? (Answer: we already went there. Hitler thought the American idea of Eugenics was such a great idea that he made it a major priority of his government)
> we don't have a hardline free speech movement like the USA
A lot of places have movements where people want more free speech. Just like us. The difference is, we were lucky enough to actually succeed. And it really was luck.
There is this myth that we have always just naturally revered free speech. The reality is that our country has only recently evolved its position. Up until the early 20th century, Americans were regularly convicted for defamation of the government (or speech that wasn't in the government's interests), particularly through and after WWI. Then one Supreme Court justice changed his opinion on free speech, and set the whole country on a course to re-interpret the limits of the First Amendment. We can only legally say "Fuck the USA" during wartime, or even salute a Communist flag (at any time), because that one Justice changed his mind.
If one person changing their mind moved us forward, it could also go the other way. And the same could be true for your country.
Why do you suggest that criticizing the government is BS and disinformation?
That's not what is made illegal.
Legitimate criticism is.
There's a world of difference.
On top of Singapore this includes Qatar, Thailand and... China [1].
One effect of the Hong Kong "security" law China passed is that if you "undermine" the regime outside China and transit through Hong Kong airport, you can technically be arrested and tried under that law.
where the guy got convicted with a suspended sentence and then acquitted.
> Lee's programs in Singapore had a profound effect on the Communist leadership in China, who made a major effort, especially under Deng Xiaoping, to emulate his policies of economic growth, entrepreneurship, and subtle suppression of dissent. Over 22,000 Chinese officials were sent to Singapore to study its methods.[90]
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/nazi-germanys-am...
They restrict freedom of speech in certain areas so that people don't get riled up by issues that only "cause trouble". But that means it's harder to question and expose some perhaps injustices. But they also mitigate that by having strong internal checks and government incentives to root out such problems.
They believe in equal opportunities, yet have some significant racially based laws and restrictions. For example, you are not allowed to say that any particular race is "better" than another. And certain things are allocated (by government) by race. But this restriction on speech / allocation helps keep the peace and prevent racial riots and animosity.
They have draconian drug policies. But they don't have major drug problems or homeless on the streets.
It's a small city, so some things are very peculiar to its situation and probably don't work elsewhere. And maybe there is a cultural aspect to tolerance for these rules too.
But whether you agree or disagree, Singapore makes you think twice whether you're right about your beliefs.
And yet I think one racial group of citizens was banned from the Air Force until a decade or so ago.
Are you speaking of the restriction on conscription of Malay citizens? Which would naturally preclude them from being in the Air Force in similar numbers? Or some worse actual policy of exclusion?
The prevailing theory is that they're more likely to have kin in neighbouring Malaysia.
Singapore is perpetually fearful of being annexed by Malaysia. (These days, it's more like propaganda to keep mandatory conscription relevant.)
I believe it was that, yes.
Singapore’s perception of causing “racial disharmony” is very different from the West. In fact, the ruling party in Singapore has been speaking against importing any sort of “woke politics”.
1988 seems like a lifetime ago [1]:
> Back in 1988, LKY said that he would have considered then Minister for National Development, S Dhanabalan for Prime MInister had he not been Indian. LKY was certain of the opinion back then, that Singapore was not ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister.
[1] https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2021/01/26/is-it-pap-that-i...
Singapore has homeless people [1]. They're sometimes homeless by choice or pride.
It's more obvious if one is out and about in the housing areas at night. I walk past one homeless person sleeping on a void deck bench every day.
[1] https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/about-1000-homeless-pe...
And in other parts of the US, everyone has a family member or knows someone with a family member suffering from drug addiction.
For example, if you look more closely at Japan, while their politics is arguably more democratic, the culture has an obvious authoritarian slant as well. Mostly unnoticeable to foreigners but it's there. Some of what you described regarding Singapore also applies to Japan, albeit sometimes those things might be enforced culturally and not necessarily in law. (But then, look up their criminal conviction rate if you want to be scared.)
China is another example. People often have strong (and often irrationally emotional) opinions about politics in China, but I suppose we can agree that the past narrative about the Chinese government having to implement democratic reforms or perish has lost much credibility by now.
I mean, everyone has their own opinions about what is a "moral" way to run a country, but if we're talking about achieving objective results with Confucian-style-paternalistic-authoritarian governments, Singapore isn't really an exception. (In fact, it might be the only way East Asian countries know how to properly run a country. There's more to public administration than democratic elections)
On the topic of libel, I do believe there should be consequences (perhaps not $100k but enough to strongly deter individuals and media) for spreading unsubstantiated claims / accusations that negatively impact someone's reputation. It takes a lifetime to build a reputation and can be destroyed on a whim - along with your career - without due process. The consequences of this can be devastating to people and their families for the remainder of their lives. It's not just sharing a link, damage is being done here.
Letting that kind of lying go unpunished does not enhance freedom. It destroys discourse and it destroys people's respect for governance. If these laws were simply a tool for corruption, then Singapore would be the most corrupt, dysfunctional place on earth. It clearly isn't.
I think actually the opposite is true. When you let people libel and lie with impunity you destroy any respect for leadership, truth and politicians itself will stop holding themselves to any standard, because after all anyone can slander you anyway, so why even bother.
It seems to have become common in Western discourse to conflate truth with power. Any speech against individuals who hold a position of power is legitimate, any defense from people in position of power is illegitimate and tyrannical. This cannot be right because the end result is that no legitimate exercise of power is even possible. Someone who posts on Facebook is not automatically the hero of the people, and the Prime Minister is not automatically wrong.
To the contrary, government control of the 'truth' is quite corrosive to freedom, discourse and everything else.
What we need are principled institutions that don't lie.
Edit - adding a reference [1]
"Those who criticize the government or the judiciary, or publicly discuss race and religion, frequently find themselves facing criminal investigations and charges, or civil defamation suits and crippling damages."
[1] https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/12/12/kill-chicken-scare-mon...
You don't just need principled institutions that don't lie, you need principled people that don't lie. Why do you think institutions are supposed to be held accountable but citizens are not? Why is a government official supposed to be punished if they lie to the public, but a person on Facebook isn't? In either case lies are undermining social trust.
These questions require actual answers rather than platitudes about freedom or dogma.
"A lot of people seem to conflate holding people accountable for lies that damage other people's reputation or honor with authoritarianism or lack of freedom."
If the determination of the truth (i.e. what is a lie or not) is established by the 'authority', then there's no basis of credibility in your statement.
It's naive to suggest we live in a magical world wherein the truth and falsehoods can easily be determined, or that statements can be even themselves deemed conclusive.
"The Prime Minister Engaged in Fraud"
"It looks like the Prime Minister Engaged in Fraud"
"The Prime Minister was motivated to commit Fraud by this circumstance, and I suspect he did"
Now tell me, which one of those is 'lies and slander'?
How is the determination of 'fraud' even made?
On the basis of a court ruling?
How can someone speculate about malicious activity and do the reporting, the work which often leads to more material investigations in the first place, if it's illegal?
"Why do you think institutions are supposed to be held accountable but citizens are not? "
I didn't remotely say that or imply that, but 'institutions' - i.e. the Judiciary, the Press, Legislative, Bureaucracy, Academia are held to higher standard because there's a proportionality to their claims to legitimacy: if John Smith wants to say 'The PM is a fraud' - it means something different than when the 'Paper of Record' says 'John is a Fraud'.
"These questions require actual answers rather than platitudes about freedom or dogma."
Freedom of Expression is not a 'dogma' or a 'platitude' - it's fundamental to the well being of society which is why they are entrenched in every constitution of the modern age i.e. EU, Canada, USA etc..
https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-competitiveness-repor...
No non-colonial democracy has managed to go from underdeveloped to developed since WW2.
SK, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Chile and Malaysia all had their key growth during authoritarian regimes. Many later transitioned to democracies, but that's easy when the hard part is done.
Sadly, I reached this when desperately looking for a democratic country for India (my home country) to emulate as a model. As a believer in democracy, I would love to be corrected. But my research indicates that Demovracy does truly have a shoddy track record at spurring development.
In that region, actually, democracy seems to have correlated positively with economic growth.
A lot of our original industrial development prior to 1900 was done in conditions of very limited democracy. Only wealthy people and the middle class could vote before 1907. (After that, franchise was extended to all men over 24.) Prior to that, you had to pay some minimal yearly taxes in order to have a vote, which excluded majority of the population.
After 1989, a large element in our prosperity was geographic proximity to Germany. Germans outsourced a lot of production to the Visegrad states. It definitely helped grow our GDP, but it also puts sorta-kinda ceiling on it. The most valuable parts of the entire production chain are still back in the West and they are not going to move abroad.
BTW Viktor Orbán is a great friend of the German investors and they protect him quite a bit as well. It seems that investors do not care about local state of politics much, only about stability.
Related to that, it does seam than whenever Skoda the brand is about to surpass the models of its parent (German) company, Volkswagen, the powers that be decide that that behaviour should stop immediately.
The most recent example is the Mk2 Skoda Superb, which imho was miles ahead in terms of style above the Passat, and further back the Mk1 Skoda Octavia was also miles ahead in terms of reliability compared to anything that the VW brand had.
I believe this has to do with the proximity of other developed and modern countries, economically, but also culturally. To put it bluntly, nobody wants to do business with a bunch of cavemen.
I agree, the Botswana example is not exactly what India is looking for given the history there. To this day, the TSwanna have not diversified from diamonds. They have no industrialization to speak of.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Tree_map...
GDP per capita? 18,500+ USD. They are solidly middle class by global standards.
Also, as I understand, the country lies just outside of the tsetse fly belt, which is very important for human development. Interestingly (and sadly), they also have one of the highest rates of HIV infection in the world, but seem to be managing it very well. (Wiki says: <<As of 2014, Botswana has the third-highest prevalence rate for HIV/AIDS, with roughly 20% of the population infected.>>)
He argues that the US in particular became so wealthy in huge part due to it's non-free trade practices (while still being relatively democratic). Countries may liberalize later in development, but not before building their own industrial base, etc. My memory is quite hazy on the latter part -- I should read the actual book. However I can recommend seeking out his viewpoint.
Edit: his book is not so much a critique of capitalism, as a critique of free trade orthodoxy for developing nations.
By today's standard Poland of 1989 can definitely be described as an underdeveloped country (annual gdp per capita $1700 usd - but the majority of population lived on a lot less). Infrastructure in shambles. Major roads and rail links designed not along North-South as the country's economy needs, but East-West to facilitate transfer of Soviet army if needed. Fast forward 30 years and things look pretty much developed. A big chunk of it was thanks to EUs money(since 2004), but one could argue access to local market for Western companies repaid them the expense many times over...
Sure there are issues with the quality of the democracy (specially inability to modernise juidiciary in last 30 years), amount of emotional arguments in public discourse etc, but overall IMO it is a good example of a democratic country that managed to make the standard of living a lot better for its citizens.
Polish economic miracle is incredible. Warsaw looks like a Manhattan built on a steppe, and living standards of ordinary Polish citizens have gone through the roof in a single generation.
Indeed the most interesting example in this is India where growth, prosperity and position on human development index became better when it was free than at present when it is partly free.
China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan grown exponentially not due to authoritarian rule but due to the hard work of their people and in the belief that with hard work they can change life (very much embedded in Confucius teachings). The only thing government did was not to come in the way of the people to have better life through hard work.
> The only thing government did was not to come in the way of the people to have better life through hard work.
At least in the case of South Korea, that is demonstrably false. There were, and are, lots of links between these large, successful international Chaebols and the government. Without government support, and protectionist measures shielding them from foreign competition it's unlikely they'd have grown as large and successful as they are today (similar to China today blocking foreign Big Tech companies from operating in China, to grow their own national champions).
I know less about the other Asian economies you mention, but the "East Asian Model"[3] runs contrary to what you say about hard work alone.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee
USA foreign policy and access to market is also dependent on America first policy driven by large conglomerates not very different from those in South Korea, China and Japan. Recently there are ample examples where USA restricted market access when it’s own conglomerates are in trouble (using some flimsy excuse in the name of security and national interests).
Besides reading some report please spend time in those countries and you will know an average citizens commitment to hard work in general (don’t make exception as rule). Prosperity do not come due to government policy but due to hard work of majority.
Even if you don't like the style of last paragraph, if you just look at the number of hours per worker in those countries, it is globally leading. There is real substance in this comment.
For one, I would not trust any news that comes out about India right now. Both sides of reporting are so heavily colored by ideology, that most reports might as well be pledges of allegiance rather than sources of information. India's biggest boom came during 1991 (liberalization) which was a failure of democracy pushed through during a political and economic crisis. (Domestic terrorist assassination of popular leader + IMF threatening India to liberalize against popular opinion).
If anything, the economic failures of Modi showcase the problems of large democracies. It always devolves into populism and procedural in-action, where major changes can only be done by stealth; and thus haphazardly.
> North Korea, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and India
It has to be a cruel joke to mention India with 3 failed military states, when it has one of the the strongest election commissions in the world.
> concentration of power and wealth in the hands of selected few
Given that India was run by 1 family for 60 years, the burden of Proof is on you to show that the current Govt. has a greater concentration of wealth. India has always had a concentration of power in a few hands. It's just that the current bearers of that power are disliked by western elites.
PS: I do not particularly love Modi. His economic policies have been shoddy and I would prefer someone less tied to a narrow view of hinduism. But, the Indian opposition right now is more incompetent than fish climbing a tree.
________________________
> Confucius teachings
> government did was not to come in the way of the people to have better life through hard work.
Could not be farther away from the truth. Each of these govts inserted themselves strongly into personal life and their growth came during a short duration of strong authoritarianism.
Japan (A world superpower in 1945 with high HDI) and China (as large as large govt) should be the last countries to be referenced for the point you are making.
Exactly in display in your own response.
> Modi showcase the problems of large democracies
It showcase the result of disrespect of plurality in society and promoting hatred and Nazi style Hindu supremacy forgetting the complex geopolitical and cultural diversity of India.
> Given that India was run by 1 family for 60 years,
You mean to say India was an authoritarian state ruled by one family for last 60 years and only after 2014 it became free (HDI, poverty alleviation, education, from free to partly free tell a different story). Anyways these statement reflects the ardent follower logic of Hindu nationalist (in India it will be called M--- bhakt logic).
> Each of these govts inserted themselves strongly into personal life
Lived long enough in all these countries to know first hand that the development happened not because of the government but by work done by its citizens. Indeed USA itself is reaping the benefits of the hard work done by its own citizens with emphasis on science and engineering, not superstition and same apply to all these countries.
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and China in spite of very different political system were able to achieve similar trajectory of growth founded in hard work with emphasis on science and engineering instead of superstition. So they are a reference point.
China took 1.4 billion people out of poverty and made them moderately wealthy society with almost 99% literacy rates and 100% in all tier 1,2 and 3 cities. Its not because of the government, but because of its people and their emphasis on education.
During Mao Tse-tung (毛泽东), China was an authoritarian state and government was in every walk of life and during that time it was behind India, when it came to all the parameters of HDI (human development index). Food was rationed and there is lost generation during that time which did not go to university at all. All the progress happened when authoritarianism started to fade away from society giving space to it's citizens to learn, work and earn a decent living without state.
May be brush up some history on these countries, you will realize that their growth story is rooted in their citizens quest for better life through education, hard work with emphasis on science and engineering instead of superstition, race or religion supremacy theory.
* Nazi style Hindu supremacy
* M--- bhakt
* Mao Tse-tung (毛泽东)
* free to partly free
1 question: Where in South Delhi are you from ?
Also, while we are at ad-hominems..at least make the right accusations. I'm a secular (in the western sense) atheist who used to be called 'deshdrohi' in university because of my lack of attachment to Bollywood, Cricket, Hindi or Hindu. I couldn't care less about mandirs, hindu supremacy or love jihad.
> hard work with emphasis on science and engineering instead of superstition
That is pretty much India's motto right now, and such narrow perspectives on progress rarely yield good results.
p.s: I fully recognize that my comment is snarky and not considered to be right for HN. Feel free to flag it if need by.
Not from India, so probably you have some ill conceived logic in display here.
> I'm a secular (in the western sense) atheist
Not really given your statement and words used in your previous comments you seem to be a very Hindu nationalist, spreading the pseudo information that India is an authoritarian state ruled by 1 family since independence until 2014.
> That is pretty much India's motto right now
Yes precisely building a society embedded in hindu religious supremacy, pseudo science (e.g. Anti-radiotion chip from cow dung [1], cow urine for Covid [2], superstition [3], fake claims of Stephen Hawking supporting vedas and vedic theory of science by Union Minister of India [4]).
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/other/india-official-says-chi...
[2] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/coronavirus-hindus-...
[3] https://qz.com/india/1492838/how-scientists-are-fighting-fak...
[4] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/hindu-nationalists-c...
Orientalist bullshit in the extreme. Politically and economically speaking, you could not name four more different countries.
The assertion here is that "Confucian values" led to these countries economically developing from un-developed to developed economies. Yet earlier you state the "counter example" of North Korea being an authoritarian regime that brought about economic downfall.
So, "Confucian values" + authoritarian regime = economic growth (SK)
"Confucian values" + authoritarian regime = economic stagnation (NK)
?
These are two nation-states that had literally the same culture prior to mid-20th wars; if we're focusing on the "Confucian values" part of a culture.
What is the actual argument here? Or is this some ancient Chinese wisdom/Confucius say bulls*t?
First step is to stop referring to "democratic republics" as "Democracies" with a capital D. That's a popular misuse of the term that rulers love to abuse. It's fair to call it newspeak.
Voting every 5 years for 1 entity to rule a whole country does not make a government democratic. It's merely an escape hatch, a stopgap to tyrannical rulers. It prevents the worst, but doesn't prevent the typical government cronyism.
Diversifying the portfolio is the safest option; it may not yield the highest returns, but it also never yields the lowest returns.
If we wave our hands and discount all the failed democracies (that turn into autocracies, or fall apart in civil wars), and if you think that the difference between India's development in the past 30 years and China's development in the past 30 years is just a matter of 'it's not the highest returns...'
One's GDP/capita grew from $300 to $10,000, the other from $300 to $2000 in that timespan. That's not a difference of 'not the highest returns', that's a quantitative difference between remaining in poverty on one hand, and a hundreds of millions of people living Western lifestyles on the other.
I think it's safe to say at this point that the historic record indicates that democracy and economic development are likely to be orthogonal.
Let's dig deeper. You wrote: <<But my research indicates that Democracy does truly have a shoddy track record at spurring development.>>
Zero trolling: I am always curious: How it possible that fast food restaurants (McD, etc.) in Danmark can pay the equivalent of 15 USD per hour? Yet, Danmark remains incredibly economically competitive. It is regularly short of labour (unemployment rate is considered too low by national economists). I picked Danmark instead of Norway (which has similar issues), because Danmark is not an oil major country. From the economically liberal view, Danmark should be crumbling under the weight of its personal income tax regime and globally leading wages for unskilled workers.
Can anyone with formal economics training comment on this matter? We would appreciate your thoughts.
It was, after all, to Singapore that Deng Xiaoping came before enacting his far-reaching economic reforms in China. Until then, capitalism and democracy had seemed inextricably linked. Now the link is broken.
- Slavoj Zizek
https://www.ft.com/content/088ee78e-7597-11e4-a1a9-00144feab...
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Lee_Kuan
This character was only mentioned in dialogue.
Lee Kuan shares naming elements with Lee Kuan Yew, the first Prime Minister of the newly independent Singapore in the 1960s. Lee established a hybrid form of governance with democratic and authoritarian elements.
I spent some time there and met a bunch of locals from different backgrounds. Some were outright enthusiastic about the authoritarian government and thought the ends justified the means. Some (Malay folks in particular) chafed at the enforced rigidity of the society, but they still had comfortable lives.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_Oxley_Road#Dispute_over_the...
[2] https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/li-shengwu-fined-s1500...
https://trak.in/tags/business/2020/11/24/5-yrs-jail-for-offe...
This is the new norm , post something and disappear into thin air as if the poster did not exist , get trolled , threatened , coerced into apologies or be threatened with law suits (notorious cases like this https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/22/whitehat-jrs-founder-files...) Cannot help but feel bad that "Man is born free ,everywhere he is in chains". Just cork up , and move on.
> Disneyland with the Death Penalty
> We sent William Gibson to Singapore to see whether that clean dystopia represents our techno future.
The state with Disneyland has death penalty though (Fl & Cal) even thought Cal put it under moratorium.
- Defamation or slander is also illegal in the U.K. upon which the Singapore system is based. It’s much easier to be convicted of that in the U.K. than the US
- That said, I would agree that this is a pretty weak case with the convicted simply sharing a link to an article that contained false statements about the PM
- Having spent considerable time in Singapore I’m not sure I’d label them authoritarian - at least not in the way it’s commonly used.
- Legitimate elections are held although the ruling party has set up a system that is favorable to them holding power (though not impossible for them to lose)
- There is an underlying sense by the ruling party that Singapore as a system is not that stable so the govt actually works quite hard to stay on the people’s good side. Recently the govt admitted that Covid tracing data could be used for police investigations which contradicted prior statements and it did not go over well. The govt basically apologized for mishandling it and added additional protections (though didn’t back down entirely). It’s a bizarre system where the govt holds a lot of power but is very concerned about not having support.
So not excusing the lawsuit (because I think it’s a net harm) but adding some context.
I wouldn’t even visit this place.
Further: If anyone else can comment about libel in their own country (that is not UK/Singapura), please kindly comment. We are curious to learn more!
To be clear: I am not making a judgement about libel laws. It is a complex matter for each society to decide.
That speaks volumes. "I am probably corrupt, but definitely too lazy to chase the original source, because a) it will cost more, and b) I'm corrupt probably corrupt and the article is speaks the truth". I believe that the "b)" is more likely (let's see if he will sue me!!)
On the other hand, this politician doesn't care if a random guy in the UK has a negative and correct opinion of him, he cares that his people sit down and shut up while he goes about his (corrupt) business.
Another point towards this direction is that.. politicians usually sue somebody that defamed them, and then DONATE the proceeds to charities. Not this one I guess..
But the original source was a Malaysian blog, and suing them across the border would have been pointless.
> That speaks volumes. "I am probably corrupt, but definitely too lazy to chase the original source, because a) it will cost more, and b) I'm corrupt probably corrupt and the article is speaks the truth". I believe that the "b)" is more likely (let's see if he will sue me!!)
The Singapore government has set multiple precendents about ministers having to sue to protect their integrity [1]:
> But if they've defamed us, we have to sue them -- because if we don't, our own integrity will be suspect. We have an understanding that if a minister is defamed and he does not sue, he must leave cabinet.
[1] http://edition.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/interview/goh.chok.t...
Ah, so the Singaporean government is absolutely corrupt from top to bottom. Good to know.