Hacker News Reader

Comment by batgaijin | Hacker News Reader

Wow... that is beyond weird. From what I've read I always thought Singapore was quite the corrupt-free police state.

Some replies to parent dispute the 'police state' moniker. Decide for yourself:

(Source: http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/singap... . Points below are all direct quotes)

* Singapore's Internal Security Act (ISA) and Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act permit the authorities to arrest and detain suspects for virtually unlimited periods of time without charge or judicial review.

* The Misuse of Drugs Act permits the authorities to confine suspected drug users in "rehabilitation" centers for up to three years without trial.

* Outdoor gatherings of five or more persons still require police permits. The city-state's Speakers Corner -- where people may demonstrate, perform, and hold exhibitions -- remains the only outdoor space where uncensored speech is allowed in the country.

* The Singaporean government and senior government officials have frequently brought charges of "scandalizing the court," criminal and civil defamation, and sedition to silence and even bankrupt its critics.

* Singapore's 208,000 foreign domestic workers are still excluded from the Employment Act and key labor protections, such as limits on daily work hours.

* Human rights defenders in Singapore risk being fined, imprisoned, bankrupted, and banned from traveling outside the country without government approval.

While these aren't good, they don't refute the commonly held belief that Singapore is essentially free from corruption.

Human rights is another issue and on this they do very badly. They are among the worst places in the World to get arrested for basically anything and they have harsh laws that restrict all sorts of personal freedoms. But that's not corruption.

Well, the article in no way actually implies corruption.

If the men in power decided that Shane's death needed to be covered up, and the men in uniforms followed orders - then that is exactly how a non-corrupt police state works; you have strict order but that order doesn't neccessarily favor the people.

A corrupt state would have the relevant police officer be bribed individually and/or extracting favors from the relatives; corruption requires weak structure, where the system is centralised in theory but decentralised in practice, as decisions are made or changed by corrupt officials. But if the authority decides to do an evil thing and the system executes it without question - then that's a perfect example of an efficient, noncorrupt police state that achieves it's goals and spits at the costs.

If the men in power decided the death needs to be covered up, that is exactly evidence of corruption - it's just high-level corruption and not low-level.

Mexico is an example of a country with a lot of low-level corruption (you can bribe the police to get out of anything). The United States is an example of a country with very little low-level corruption, but with (arguably) lots of high-level corruption.

Singapore is a country with almost non-existant low level corruption in my experience (i lived there for a time and have visited many times), and their system is specifically designed to eliminate high-level corruption: they pay public servants high salaries and punish any corruption with very long prison sentences.

>If the men in power decided the death needs to be covered up, that is exactly evidence of corruption - it's just high-level corruption and not low-level.

Not if the high-level law permits this kind of thing.

Are you suggesting its legal for corporate intersts to kill people in Singapore (or anywhere)? Think we'll need a citation for that...

Corporate interests? In a lot of cases and places, corporate interests are one with those of the state.

What I suggest is that the legal structure of a state might give it the option to approve and perform those things. You'd be surprised how many western countries have also invaded places or killed people for specific corporate interests that coincide with those of the state.

It's not as if they do it for the benefit of some small company. We're talking corporations with the level of influence and budget that's bigger than a lot of countries.

The common view among Singaporean laymen is that high-level officers have little reason to be corrupt, as they pay themselves high salaries benchmarked to the top four earners in six professions [1], aimed at keeping top talent in politics and the civil service.

Whether the men in power are making the morally/ethically-correct decisions regarding this case is a separate matter altogether.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Singapore#Remunerati...

It's high level corruption if a ranking official enriches himself to harm the state/government. It's [efficient, non-corrupt but still] dictatorship if a ranking official says "ends justify means" and is ready to harm citizens if it's useful for state/government/military goals.

It's only free from corruption on the indices because financial crime is legalized (the victims are overseas in places like Burma, where their clients extract ill-gotten gains to launder in the Singapore markets) and the government, which came to power on a platform of communism and claims to be a democracy, is in fact a well established, dynastically-held totalitarian state with hopelessly enslaved (believe they are free) citizens.

That would explain why the same party has won every single election since independence.

And it explains the large overlap among executives of large companies, military brass, and government ministers. They are all the same people: literally a guy is a CEO, because he is also a general and last year he was Minister for Whatever.

I still laugh about the interview I saw with Lee Hsien Loong in which the obsequious (although perhaps rather clever) interviewer asked him whether he had been upset when Goh Chok Tong had immediately succeeded Lee Kwan Yew (Hsien Loong's father) as PM. LHL squirmed and laughed nervously, and stammered, "Well, ah, of course not. One cannot have unreasonable expectations." Even he was embarrassed for his country then.

Can you give some examples of legal financial crimes? Not saying you're wrong, I've just never heard that. I know they are a tax haven and have lax financial controls, but the "victims" of that are the tax man in foreign governments.

I am talking about, for example, laundering money for the Burmese junta, who routinely censor, enslave, imprison, rape and kill their own citizens.

eg. "In 1991, the Junta laundered $400 million through a Singapore bank as down payment for Chinese weapons." - Jane's Intelligence Review ... or see http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2007/09/singapores-debt-of-h...

While Singapore may be largely perceived by the world to be free from corruption, one of the officers from the Corrupt Practices Investigation Board was recently investigated for "financial impropriety" [1]. (Which brings to mind a case of "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?")

At least they did something about it.

[1]: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/vi...

I do not think it possible to have a corrupt-free police state.

Not trying to invoke Godwin's law, but AFAIK both Stalin and Hitler had police states with rather little corruption; certainly far less corruption than nowadays Russia or mid-Africa.

But those aren't police states at all, Russia and Central Africa. They are very poorly organized and great parts of the countries are lawless. They may have authoritarian governments but those governments have limited authority to enact things.

And with Stalin/Hitler, you'd also have to look at the neighboring historical eras. For all you know Germany historically was also very non-corrupt. (not a challenge, if you do know, please speak!)

> They may have authoritarian governments but those governments have limited authority to enact things.

Corruption is an integral part of the system in those countries. It is not that respective governments have limited authority (quite otherwise in actuality) - they allow this to happen. It is how they function. What you perceive as lawlessness is a normal (desired) state of affairs.

If, for instance, you're a honest law enforcement official or a dutiful member of the parliament, you will not fit in and will have to either accept the rules of the system or be expelled (imprisoned or killed if you're stubborn).

> And with Stalin/Hitler, you'd also have to look at the neighboring historical eras. For all you know Germany historically was also very non-corrupt. (not a challenge, if you do know, please speak!)

Doesn't matter, this still refutes the original statement.

I'd say its difficult but not impossible, especially over the long term. Singapore seems to have managed the trick, but it is the exception rather than the rule.

It isn't a police state. And in recent years, it has been shown that it isn't corruption-free either.

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100537.htm

You get caned if you overstay your 90 days.

And? How does that have any bearing on the story at hand whatsoever?

As an entrepreneur who has seriously considered moving to singapore in the past I am much more interested in what can happen when you do obey their (quite reasonable) laws.

I think we all know if you're in asia stay as legal as possible. I'm just saying don't make an exception for Singapore.

Fair enough. Good advice.

I'm trying not to come across as some pro-authoritarianism masochist in this thread but am I really alone in thinking that there's some merit in deciding a set of laws, then enforcing them?

Overstay your visa? Is that really a minor crime? Does that happen by accident? When was the last time you "accidentally" stayed more than 90 days in a foreign country?

In my country, Australia, you'd be "punished" by being flown home at our expense. Wow. What a deterrent. That'll stop them .. er, using the same passport the next time they try.

There are a lot of things to love about western society but the blind adherence to this 1970s "never harm the child" ideology is fucking crap. Corporal punishment works. It's as simple as that. We have dispensed with it in western culture - without an effective alternative - to our loss.

Are you familiar with what caning, as performed as intended in Singapore, actually entails? It is not merely the infliction of pain, not some glorified form of spanking, but rather the infliction of bodily injury so severe that it requires immediate medical attention. It is barbaric, there is no nicer way to put it. Any reasonable human would consider it torture.

Suggesting that it could ever be a suitable punishment for violating the terms of a visa is ludicrous.

If that is the sort of thing that you want to buy into, then I guess all I can say is that the rest of western society is better off without your perspective.

You exaggerate. It's not a slap on the wrist, no, but calling it torture is a very long stretch indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore#Medical_tre...

It is torture. It would be in clear violation of United Nations Convention Against Torture, but Singapore has not signed that.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3c9_1304013159

Tell you what, if you think that isn't torture, then you go get caned. If you can tell me it isn't torture afterwards, provided you are not in shock, then I'll take it all back. But if not, then I get to watch you attempt to cram your apologetics up your ruined ass.

> Tell you what, if you think that isn't torture, then you go get caned

Yeah man. Why don't you say "Tell you what, if you think prison isn't inhumane, you go spend 25 years in prison"

Way to demand an unreasonable precondition to progress in an argument. Is there a name for this fallacy?

Anyway, that video is hard to watch, and I would be sympathetic to an appeal to reduce cane size and weight.

> Way to demand an unreasonable precondition to progress in an argument. Is there a name for this fallacy?

I don't know if it has an official name. I call it the "Jury Fallacy." The Jury Fallacy says that, to have the right to express an opinion or form a judgment about some behavior, you must have personally experienced, or taken part in, that behavior. Which would mean that, to serve on a jury in a murder trial, you must be a murderer. But it's neither true nor sensible -- to qualify for a jury, to be able to draw a conclusion, all you need is to be competent to evaluate evidence.

So ... the "Jury Fallacy."

Thanks for the reply. That's a good name, although I'd extend it to the "Jury of Murderers Fallacy".

I think your example is subtly different though, and is similar to what I think of as the "You Don't Know What It's Like Fallacy". So named because of its typical use when criticising or commenting on X: "How dare you. You don't know what it's like to be X". X being any group you care to name from Atheists to Zoophiles. Or, in your example, murderers.

This case is slightly different, since the fallacy is to claim that you cannot criticise A, where A is an act, process or tradition, unless you have a personal connection or experience with A. If I had used this fallacy against my adversary, I could perhaps have claimed that he has no right to criticise the Singaporean justice system since he is not Singaporean, or that he has no standing to criticise because he has not been a victim of violent crime.

Personal Experience Fallacy? Personal Connection Fallacy? Outsider Fallacy? Insider Fallacy? I'll think about this.

What the hell is your definition of torture, if that doesn't fit it?

One of my coworkers had an off by one error when booking a return flight and overstayed his visa by a day (not in Singapore). So yes, it happens by accident. The idea that he should be caned as a result is ludicrous.

You only get caned if you overstay by more than 90 days in Singapore.

Oh well then that totally makes it okay.

Just correcting the misinformation that you can get caned by overstaying for a single day...

FWIW, I overstayed my Chinese visa by one day and had to pay a ~90$ fine. I was on my way 5 minutes later.

Really, then what exactly would you call it? You are essentially subject to all manner of ridiculous punishment for what would be considered minor or non-offenses in most free countries. Most of their elections are uncontested. You can dress it up because their streets are clean and safe, but it's still facism.

> You are essentially subject to all manner of ridiculous punishment for what would be considered minor or non-offenses in most free countries

Like vandalism and petty theft. And just look at how successful those "free countries" have been in addressing those categories of crime!

What you call "ridiculous" is simply what you have been conditioned to think, no more. Elsewhere in the world it might be called "effective".

Fascism is very effective.

It's about values and freedom. If you don't care about that, safety is easy.

Corporal punishment of petty crimes == fascism. Is that your thesis?

I believe you to be quite misinformed in your understanding of fascism, freedom, and everything else. As far as I can see, the only "freedom" on offer in the society you hint at is the freedom to not be punished effectively for your crimes.

Please, Americans: if you have to mention the word "freedom" in your argument then you are probably talking shit. Think about it.

I was hoping after editing this reply like 5 times, you were going to come up with something here...

So you only address the punishment issue, but you don't say a thing about the sham elections. And yes, I'd prefer to step in gum once a year than have some 20 year old kid get beaten because they didn't conform to my narrow societal goals.

This is the difference between the west and the east. It is a chasm in philosophy that will never be bridged.

Sham elections? What are you talking about? Corporal punishment and sham elections go hand in hand?

And have it your way. I'd prefer to ride in clean, non-vandalised trains, and the 20 year old would-be vandal was beaten after their first indiscretion, and never did it again.

Seems to be it's less an unbridgeable chasm between east and west, and more a chasm between lazy Berkeley ideology and pragmatism.

Since you're resorting to catty little twat comments, this discussion is over. Just so you know, I come from dirt farmer immigrants in the Midwest, but keep assuming stuff. It's cute when people like you try to claim some sort of superiority due to your VASTLY superior logic.

TL;DR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc0mxOXbWIU

> This is the difference between the west and the east. It is a chasm in philosophy that will never be bridged.

The US kills its own citizens without trial using hellfire missiles in drone strikes. So what's the difference?

If the US is fucked up, that makes it okay for others to be fucked up as well?

Surely you don't mean that, so I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

I was responding to his statement "This is the difference between the west and the east. It is a chasm in philosophy that will never be bridged."

If you're looking for me to defend the U.S., you're going to be looking for a very, very, very long time. I'm as anti-drone, anti-police state as you will ever find a US citizen.

BUUUUUT, I will bite on one thing.

How many Americans have been killed by drones? A handful? How many of those were actively fighting for terrorist organizations? All of them.

Now I do think it's only a matter of time before the US turns that power inwards and starts flying drones over the US. The NYPD already has drones and no one is quite sure whether they're able/willing to equip them with "non-lethal" weapons very soon, but it hasn't happened yet.

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

This guy above me loves the fact that people are executed for marijuana possession, which is almost completely harmless physically, of negligible harm to society, and largely beneficial to health if not abused.

LOVES IT.

> How many Americans have been killed by drones? A handful? How many of those were actively fighting for terrorist organizations? All of them.

(American born) Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year old son was killed in a separate drone strike, 2 weeks after his father was killed. No suggestion was made that the son was guilty of anything, but that 'he should have had a more responsible father'.

> How many Americans have been killed by drones? A handful? How many of those were actively fighting for terrorist organizations? All of them.

How would you know? There were no trials.

> This guy above me loves the fact that people are executed for marijuana possession

No, I'm pretty sure he never said that, and I'm almost as sure he doesn't.

Your political opponents are not evil.

Petty crimes such as vandalism and littering are offenses against property. corporal punishment is an attack upon the person. Most people don't consider injury to property to justify injury to the person.

Large parts of the East consider injury to property, especially "public" property the same as an injury to society. Like apparently the fellow I'm debating with up here.

Are you familiar with Sinclair? I've long been a fan of his definition of the term.

As he puts it, fascism is one part capitalism and one part brutality (if I recall correctly I believe he specifies murder, but I think the relation and general sentiment is clear.)

Okay okay, we get it, you're an autocrat. You love power and the powerful. You wrap your lips around the cock of the state. Nice work.

I don't know much about Singapore, but I think it's worth pointing out that while sometimes Facism can be effective, more commonly Facism claims to be very effective, and punishes those who publicly say otherwise.

Like every political system. I suppose that the way I see it is that a fascist systems punishes in a way that is worse than the character assassination and innuendo that western democracy offers.

> And just look at how successful those "free countries" have been in addressing those categories of crime!

The crime rate in Western countries, including the US, has been falling steadily since the 90s. Given the differences in cultures and legal frameworks ... nobody is really certain why.

One theory that's been gaining some attention is less lead = less crime.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li...

That's one I've seen. But there are quite a few -- long period of economic growth, the rise of video games, changing diets, changing weather, changing incarceration rates, changing police policy ...

I've visited Singapore just for a few days, but based on that experiment, the western media is overdoing this Singapore-bashing. I'd strongly suggest to visit the country, or at least get familiar with its history, its surrounding neighbors, theirs relationships, theirs relative cultural and economical differences. After that you will understand them better, and you will realize that its not that black-and-white as the media would like to suggest.

Heh, this gets downvoted for what? Oh well, feel free to stay in your bubble, and don't ask questions that will contradict your beliefs.

> I've visited Singapore just for a few days, but based on that experiment

I spent a couple of weeks in the US, and never ran afoul of bad cops or drug laws. I conclude very little from this, because even if things are as bad as reddit says, I would not expect to run afoul of those things in such a short time if I'm not breaking any major laws.

What bad things would you expect to see in just a few days, if the western media's Singapore bashing is not overblown?

I'm not sure if the grandparent post really meant it that way. It's not that you don't see anything bad while you are in Singapore, it's that you get a feeling for Singapore's situation. I've only been in Singapore for a short bit and I've met ethnic Chinese who were plenty happy to live in safe Singapore now, and not in the neighboring countries anymore (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_13_Incident)

You start off by telling us that you've been to Singapore just a few days and go on claiming superior insight into the country's cultural and political landscape. Then you wind up with a trite statement that contains a bunch of vague terms, is free of any meaning, and condescending to boot.

You're free to stay in your bubble, too.

After visiting Singapore I've bought Lee Kuan Yew's books and it is really hard to describe his thoughts and point of view in just a few sentences, but at least I have a feel of what and why they did. Since then, I'm following the media coverage of Singapore in the western world, have friends living in Singapore, and based on various observation, I can make my judgment call about what to believe and what not to.

It is not perfect, but if you don't do any of these, and you just rely on the western media, how is it better? If you see the parent of my original post, I don't think it is better in any way.

Come spend a few days in China and you will find that it is a modern country that values human rights with no corruption and lots of social harmony.

Of course, the truth is a bit more nuanced than that.

I grew up in Singapore. I was there for almost 17 years. I'm in Sydney now.

Parent is right, a lot of the negative media attention is completely over blown. Things like "outdoor gatherings of five or more persons still require police permits" while I think is still technically true, is never enforced. Obviously, because then you would require a gathering permit for a small family and the police would be running around every day busting school children.

Some of the laws are strict, but you'll see people breaking minor laws everyday with no repercussions. Just like every other city, the police have to use their brains to determine how best to spend their time.

They definitely take some offenses very very seriously e.g drug trafficing and possession. And some things seem a bit crazy like banning chewing gum. But I was there when this law came into effect and the difference it made to the city's cleanliness was noticeable.

There are other good things too. Its quite modern. Smoking is banned almost everywhere. It's really safe. Even for women at night. Public transport is good. It's multicultural and you get all the major religious holidays even if they are not your own.

It's actually a pretty good place to live.

I'd describe Singapore strict laws just as effective and strict but in exchange you get a very safe and clean country, no drugs, no garbage, no theft. That's ok with me if (and only if) those laws are not exploited by the government. i don't think this is really the case in Singapore, at least not more then in the U.S. or european countries.

Compared to the surrounding countries Singapore is like _the_ safe place and not the other way around.

I don't think their laws are necessarily brutal, but their enforcement of those laws is. They view people who break the taboo of law as people who should be handled with the full force of the state.

And personally I like drugs.

Ah well, just because you like the "freedom" of doing illegal things and the reassurance that if you're caught there will be virtually no consequences, doesn't make it right.

There are people out there that say "And personally i like to beat my wife and kids" and there are societies where this is accepted behaviour.

After being in Malaysia and Indonesia i felt very safe in Singapore and had not the impression of a state the oppresses its people.

In short words: Every country has its rules to live by. Singapore may have strict laws but gains a lot in terms of overall safety.

> There are people out there that say "And personally i like to beat my wife and kids" and there are societies where this is accepted behaviour.

Don't equate smoking marijuana to beating another human being. I've never even tried it, for the record, but I don't see anything wrong with getting high if you want to, as long as you don't cause harm to others.

I certainly don't equate marijuana to beating people (where did that word marijuana came from? It was about drugs. What about Krok? [1] Besides, you could count the victims of the drug scene, the mafia, gangs and everything that is behind drugs, bribe, weapons or prostitution. Buying drugs sponsors crime).

Anyway, back to topic. The point is that Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world [2], that doesn't come ouf of nowhere and is bought with very strict laws. Actually i was trying to make a point to not equate your own understanding of legality with another. We are all bound by certain laws and what we take for granted may sound very strange to others. For example, i find it very, very strange that, in the U.S., people are allowed to carry guns. Can't get it in my head. But well...

[1] http://io9.com/5859291/krokodil-russias-designer-drug-that-w... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Singapore

Besides, you could count the victims of the drug scene, the mafia, gangs and everything that is behind drugs, bribe, weapons or prostitution. Buying drugs sponsors crime

That seems to be a side-effect of prohibition though, not the drugs themselves. It was the same when alcohol was illegal in the US. If the drugs weren't illegal, would this still be the case?

You only need draconian laws like that to enforce the things you mentioned if the local population is naturally so uncivilized that they need to be intimated and/or treated like cattle in order to behave. I'm not saying that's what the Singaporeans are like, but it sure seems like their government thinks that's the case.

Seriously, if you need some crazy draconian law to make sure people aren't littering everywhere, then something is very wrong with your people's culture and level of civilization.

In Japan there aren't any laws like that, yet it's safe to say that it is the most civilized country on the planet. It's extremely safe, criminal violence is virtually unheard of, levels of cleanliness are superb and the people are generally very polite and pleasant in everyday situations.

It's a living proof that you don't need to intimidate people if their morals and sense of responsibility are in check and they know not to do "bad things" because they're wrong and harmful to the society, and not because they will get caned otherwise.

I think it funny that you mention Japan, because only last week i was very surprised how hard you're fined for drinking and driving in Japan, even the passengers of a car where the driver drank alhohol. :)

Do not drive after drinking alcohol. Driving under the influence of alcohol is strictly prohibited and will result in a fine, imprisonment or penalty. When a driver is arrested for DUI, the driver and the person offering the car will be fined a maximum of 1,000,000 Yen, and all other passengers in the vehicle knowingly allowed the driver to drive will be fined a maximum of 500,000 Yen.

And what do you mean with "In Japan there aren't any laws like that"? Are you kidding me? Japan has very strong laws against drugs! So in the end you support my statement.. strong laws = lower crime rate (how surprising). What would it have to do with people. People are not a unique mass, there are drug dealers, psychopaths and what not in every society.

http://www.tofugu.com/2011/12/02/drug-laws-in-japan-youd-bet...

http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?itemid=664

http://expatsguide.jp/ch6

>Seriously, if you need some crazy draconian law to make sure people aren't littering everywhere, then something is very wrong with your people's culture and level of civilization.

And how you change people culture and "level of civilization", by magic?

>In Japan there aren't any laws like that, yet it's safe to say that it is the most civilized country on the planet

Beter to compare to Malaysia (which is way closer to Singapore). Just cross the border and you see the difference.

Oh, but Singapore is a police state (a state where the government exercises rigid and oppressive laws).

It is also a dictatorship. It may not be the worst of its kind in that it actually has (the thin conception of the) rule of law, but it's not a free country and it lacks decent human rights.

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

You are painting a very dark picture of a country which in practice works better and has less problems than the US.

I think everyone agrees that dictatorship is superior to democracy IF the dictator is (and remains in the future) competent and also a decent human being. Maybe that's the state in Singapore right now?

I don't agree. I'd rather have the - sometimes - incompetent, corrupt and selfish democratically elected politicians of the US or Europe, than the 'benevolent dictator' (even if he existed). I really like the idea of democracy that much.

It's not that I don't see your point. Often democracies are inefficient. I just still prefer democracy.

You're right. I'm listening to the History of Rome, and even they had a dictator appointed during war to 'cut the crap and get on with things' in times of emergency. Time and again, it has been proven that a single benevolent dictator is much better for the country than a democratic system.

The only problem is that it's hard to find someone who does not fall into the 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' category, which is why we as a society are rather uncomfortable with the idea of a dictator.

Well, you don't have free press (the ST is a joke) and you're not allowed to criticize politicians by name. I don't know if it's a police state, but it definitely isn't a free country either.

There are numerous internet publications where politicians are criticised by name, though many publications self-censor because politicians have often initiated (and won/settled) defamation lawsuits [1]. There have been numerous allegations on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary when it comes to said lawsuits, however [2].

It is true that no printed newspapers may be published in Singapore without a permit [3].

[1] http://therealsingapore.com/content/history-defamation-suits...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_independence_in_Singap...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Singapore#Newspapers

I think they are just corrupt on a much higher level. Sure, you might not have everyday bribery, but if a big company chooses to fuck you they will not have a problem with closing both eyes for a minute.

This isn't corruption if they're following orders from above.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com