It isn't a police state. And in recent years, it has been shown that it isn't corruption-free either.
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".
It's about values and freedom. If you don't care about that, safety is easy.
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.
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.
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.
The US kills its own citizens without trial using hellfire missiles in drone strikes. So what's the difference?
Surely you don't mean that, so I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
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.
(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 would you know? There were no trials.
No, I'm pretty sure he never said that, and I'm almost as sure he doesn't.
Your political opponents are not evil.
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.)
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.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li...
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 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?
You're free to stay in your bubble, too.
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.
Of course, the truth is a bit more nuanced than that.
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.
Compared to the surrounding countries Singapore is like _the_ safe place and not the other way around.
And personally I like drugs.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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...
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.
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...
It's not that I don't see your point. Often democracies are inefficient. I just still prefer democracy.
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.
You get caned if you overstay your 90 days.
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'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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore#Medical_tre...
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.
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.
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."
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.
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