Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore
reuters.com
reuters.com
And now.. THIS. Any Singaporean HNers out there, if you're up for it, as a programmer, I'm wanna build something to circumvent this. Holler if you're keen. Cheers.
--
On another note, this is why whenever people say that Singapore is a fine place to start a business, I say thats probably because you don't "live LIVE" here. It's just another hub that you'll attempt to start up a business, and leave somewhat. Unless you come from a 3rd world/developing nation and come here to build wages. Other than that, I don't know many true blue Singaporeans that's actually happy with the state of things.
But if the regulations are about monitoring, reviewing and controlling, say, local news reports before they are published on those websites, then there is nothing you can do, unfortunately.
This might not be possible to circumvent with a 'hack'. What this is, is the digital equivalent to the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act [1] (which is part of the "regulatory framework" for traditional news platforms that is cited in the article). It's a legal/regulatory thing, not a software thing.
Put simply, yes, this is a way for the government to regulate major news organisations that are regularly visited by Singapore IP addresses, and that write Singapore-related news articles at least once a week. (The MDA seems to consider online services regulated under the Broadcasting Act. [2]) So:
(1) they ask these big companies to put up a $50,000 bond; (2) big company's employees may feel the need to self-censor, especially if there's a possibility that they might lose their jobs and much more if they're the ones who write the articles causing big company to lose part of their performance bond; (3) they achieve some degree of control over news and media organisations with an incorporated entity in Singapore, since those are the easiest to regulate.
The way I see it, it's really hard to define what Singapore-related news is, and 50,000 unique IPs is roughly 0.08% of the IPv4 addresses allocated to Singapore [3]. Considering that most consumer internet services here use dynamic IP allocation, it's not a high threshold to hit.
(I'm not a lawyer. I'm also very interested in hearing everyone else's take on this.)
[1] http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=...
[2] http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=...
[3] data from http://www.nirsoft.net/countryip/sg.html
1) Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years);
2) The global business community doesn't give a shit about democracy, as demonstrated by its rush to embrace China, the Middle East, etc, and the corresponding apologizing about their political systems.
I nearly puked on Metro North the other day (like a drunk Westchester teen after too much fun in Manhattan) reading an article where some commentator with business interests in China tried to downplay the free speech situation in China as "cultural differences."
That is demonstrably false. Everywhere you look, throughout history, the more free a country is, the more economically prosperous it becomes. In fact, _every single example_ fits this pattern. There is not a single exception.
China and Singapore are much more economically free than the US (and most other places), and that's why they have seen economic "miracles."
If your argument is, "You don't have to have 100% freedom to have economic prosperity," _that_ is true, but it's not an interesting observation. No country in history has (quite) been a utopia of freedom.
> The global business community doesn't give a shit about democracy, as demonstrated by its rush to embrace China, the Middle East, etc, and the corresponding apologizing about their political systems.
You're treating the "global business community" like it's a "class," in the Marxist sense: a bunch of people who all think alike. In fact, there are just a bunch of individuals.
Most businessmen have similar values and ideas to the rest of the culture. Which is to say, not great, not horrible.
I plan to go into business eventually in some form, and I hope you don't justify punishing _me_ on the basis of your characterization of the "global business community."
I can't look at a map and conceive of living in any country without a functioning democracy, even though such democracies often curtail economic freedom for the greater good. And I think most people feel the same way, deep down. There is a reason the Chinese crawl over themselves to come to America, not the other way around.
We certainly haven't seen the endgame of China's development. Confidently claiming that China has 'prosperity without political freedom' is simply playing fast and loose with terminology. The stronger and more educated the middle class gets, the more freedoms they demand.
Taiwan and South Korea were dictatorships but get freer every year. Still it took decades of small steps to get where they are today (legitimate elections, opposition parties winning) and clearly China has a long road to even get to where those neighbors are today.
"some kind of political freedom"
While 2013 China is no poster boy for freedom hasn't the situation improved every decade for 40 years? Isn't China today far more permissive and free than in the past? Obviously in terms of elections maybe not so much but looking only at elections might be ignoring real gains made in rule of law, property rights, speech and social freedoms.
Yes, it's called "wanting to be able to make a decent living." Not "wanting to be able to say whatever one wants."
It turns out the latter is not a prerequisite of the former.
`Vote in national elections` is the most common value of X when comparing OECDs to China, but it is not a very useful one.
The more important political freedoms (free speech, freedom of assembly, free press) are all restricted in China, but the general trend is toward less restriction, albeit with more monitoring. (The insightful will point out we are restricted and monitored in every country, but I respond there is an order of magnitude difference)
Economic freedoms are being relinquished at a much faster pace, and since that is what most people encounter in the day-to-day the average Chinese citizen will think you are pretty silly for saying he or she is not 'free'.
But the big issue for quality of life of the citizens of every country is transparency and the rule of law. And while China has been making major strides forward in the rule of law it still has abysmal transparency.
And that is a much more worrying thing than any voting metric.
Since the Enlightenment, freedom has meant political freedom. That's why the Bill of Rights has explicit guarantees about the freedom of the press and nothing, textually, about starting a business.
Yes, this is an ethnocentric way of looking at things, but my comment was made as an American criticizing American businessmen.
Sure, politicians and others try to distort freedom to mean something else all the time - like "political self-determination" (i.e., the majority can dispose of you; see India, or even Soviet Russia, for an example). But they need to be called out on it, just like I'm doing now.
No, that's not what it means (in the political context, anyway), it's not the definition that normal people use, and importantly, it is not how the term has been used for hundreds of years in western political literature and philosophy. You can't just go around appropriating words and giving them your own idiosyncratic meanings.
You should read "1984." It covers doublespeak. Apparently, in the sources you read, doublespeak about "freedom" has been going on for about 300-400 years.
A better word for it would be "group-determination" or "people-determination."
Of course, if you're a huge multinational business, you can just devote .001% of your income to lawyers in the US to make those problems somewhat go away. But that situation is not relevant to me, personally.
Of course, you are going to be able to find particular issues where the US is better. For all I know, it may be harder to move RMB in and out of China than it is to move dollars in and out of the USA.
It's difficult to know for sure, but my impression is that the number of regulations on businesses are about the same in China and the US. The difference is that, while Americans have to spend their days doing paperwork to comply with all of the regulations, the Chinese can sweep most of them out of their path by making a single payment to their local, corrupt Communist official. Best of all, no paperwork is involved!
The reduction in economic friction of letting business owners just spend their time running the business for profits instead of for regulatory compliance is enormous, and it's available for a quick "tax" payment.
As the business grows, they need to move up the Communist Party food chain and pay bigger guys more money. The bigger guys then order their subordinates to stay out of the way of the business. I've been driven down long stretches of beautiful, almost empty highway in China in a black luxury car at 150 km/h (~93mph), passing dozens of police cars along the way, and been assured that they (the cops) wouldn't bother us, because "they know who we are". That required regional authority, not local.
Of course, part of this "freedom" is the agreement to not do the unforgivable: criticize the government. Your bribes cover most issues but can't cover that one. Fortunately, that's not an issue for most businesses, because they don't make money by criticizing the government.
It's amazing how much more economic value a business can create if it gets to spend all of its time doing business instead of doing paperwork. It's also scary how easy it is for those to pay the bribes to harm those who don't (pollution, dangerous working conditions, etc.) Eliminating all regulation would be a bad idea, but there should be some measurement of how much friction loss is caused by government regulation.
Some regulations (enforced, of course) are generally helpful to an economy. Some are harmful to everyone except the regulators (worth money and power to them). The Chinese corruption way is the wrong way to go, but I'd like to see our regulators having to live within a "regulatory budget", which prevented them from adding regulatory friction every time they saw an opportunity.
> In Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Friedman developed the argument that economic freedom, while itself an extremely important component of total freedom, is also a necessary condition for political freedom. He commented that centralized control of economic activities was always accompanied with political repression.
> He argues that, with the means for production under the auspices of the government, it is nearly impossible for real dissent and exchange of ideas to exist. Additionally, economic freedom is important, since any "bi-laterally voluntary and informed" transaction must benefit both parties to the transaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Freedom
So for example, if something like free speech is limited, economic transactions are no longer free if either side has limited information. Or if you are investing money and the government has manipulated public perception about the market or the economy itself, there is a hazard.
Yes, you can do that if your idea of a good time is a date with a firing squad.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/china-executes-m...
Edit: I literally mean property rights, not "IP".
> There is not a single exception. [of lack of economic freedom and economic prosperity]
Except China -- Mostly Unfree. And Brazil -- Mostly Unfree. And Argentina -- don't you know it's Repressed, of all things, according to Heritage's bullshit, yet still a G-15. And Russia -- Mostly Unfree.
You know, I just cannot fathom how someone could seriously say Bahrein is more free than Argentina, for any meaningful sense of the term. I mean, in Bahrein atheists are put to death, FFS. Just goes to show how intellectually bankrupt and self-deluded the Heritage Foundation is.
> a "class," in the Marxist sense: a bunch of people who all think alike. [...] I hope you don't justify punishing _me_ on the basis of your characterization of the "global business community."
I get you're a budding capitalist and all that, but you could at least read the philosophy of your enemies to criticize them. And stop victimizing yourself, while you're at it.
But I guess my main point is, congratulations, you took the noble, if largely unrealized, principles of the European forefathers, passed down since the Athenians through Robespierre, Paine, Marat, Jefferson, Bakunin, even Lenin... and then turned them in for the petty ideals of a shopkeeper.
They are all approximately prosperous relative to their economic freedom. Your list here isn't very helpful, because rather than comparing two contries and their relative economic freedom in the historical context, you're just saying "Mostly Unfree." That's like saying, "That country gets a 20," without specifying any meaningful scale.
> You know, I just cannot fathom how someone could seriously say Bahrein is more free than Argentina, for any meaningful sense of the term. I mean, in Bahrein atheists are put to death, FFS.
First, I didn't say that. "Economic prosperity" != "One rich group of families and everyone else is poor." Also, religious freedom != economic freedom.
So, yeah, you're just making a mockery of what I said.
> I get you're a budding capitalist and all that, but you could at least read the philosophy of your enemies to criticize them. And stop victimizing yourself, while you're at it.
> But I guess my main point is, congratulations, you took the noble, if largely unrealized, principles of the European forefathers, passed down since the Athenians through Robespierre, Paine, Marat, Jefferson, Bakunin, even Lenin... and then turned them in for the petty ideals of a shopkeeper.
You've stooped to the level of doling out personal insults. I don't get why you would do this. Does it help your argument? No. Does it provide intellectual stimulation? No. Is it within the ethics of this community? No.
And your source is...? The eyeball test?
So why isn't Somalia, for example, the richest country on earth?
For example, the fair enforcement of property or contract laws is essential for economic prosperity.
Also the comment you cited implies relative prosperity within the country itself, not compared to every country in the world.
An uncorrupted legal system, as well as police force, are a necessity for healthy economic functions. Those are the two biggest things Somalia is lacking.
Property and contract laws are compulsory rules backed by government force and, therefore, regulation in every meaningful sense.
They may be desirable regulation (even assuming a value system where regulation, but for certain special exceptional cases, is undesirable), but calling them "not regulation" is just an exercise in creatively redefining terms to prevent communication.
Those are basic legal regulations or established charter rights. Not economic regulation as the original commenter implied and this entire thread is debating.
This distinction is artificial: there is no difference between defining the scope of property rights and enforcing rights within those boundaries, on the one hand, and generalized economic regulation, on the other: they are different words for the same thing. All economic regulation is part of defining the scope of property rights, and all definitions of the scope of property rights regulate the economy.
The well accepted meaning of economic regulation is the use of regulation to compensate for market failures or centrally-planning economies (such as controlling money supply, subsidies, tax-breaks, import/export tariffs etc).
This is very different from the enforcement and defence of basic property/contract rights in courts as I was implying.
No, that's not the "well accepted definition of economic regulation". Those are two well-known, opposing philosophies of economy regulation.
But, even so, pretty central to both styles is how property rights are defined and enforced, which tends to be radically different between the "compensate for market failures" approach and the "centrally-planning economies" approach, illustrating, again, that you cannot divide "economic regulation" from "defining and enforcing property rights", even when you limit "economic regulation" to being either "compensate for market failures" or "centrally-planning economies".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_...
It is more than two timer lower than in my country and I consider our country rather poor on average.
Singapore is more complicated.
As explained in another comment, this is not what the American rhetoric claims. It's rather the other way around, economic freedom is a requirement for political freedom and indeed, China has improved politically since it's opened economically though they still have a long way.
2- Singapore is a small and unique example.
3- The middle east is wealthy because of natural resources, and here lack of freedom really helps.
Then we also have the UAE, where women can't drive cars. But they are our friend and supply our oil, so we'll never hear about that. You will even find documentaries on job opportunities in Dubai et al on TV.
To call Singapore a "fascist dictatorship" is only true in the most literal senses of the words. It's by no means perfect, but Singapore has a much better record on human rights than anyone generally considered "fascist dictatorships". I'm not suggesting they should get a free pass, but it's not exactly Belarus there.
Not only the literal sense, but also in any dictionary sense of the words. What you perhaps meant to say is that it doesn't have some of the secondary characteristics (e.g. starving peasants) that are usually connoted when the phrase "fascist dictatorships" is used.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fascism
Singapore is "partly free" (Freedom in the World) and has a "hybrid government" (meaning that it contains authoritarian and democratic elements, Democracy Index), so not flat-out authoritarian, and certainly not authoritarian in "social organisation". It is generally not considered "extreme right wing", and save for drugs and criticism of the government, isn't particularly intolerant - indeed, it goes to lengths to protect a multiracial, multi-religious society. Not a quality typically associated with dictionary-fascists. Caning is a cruel practise than can be said to be "intolerant", but it's a bit of a stretch.
noun [mass noun] government by a dictator: the effects of forty years of dictatorship [count noun] a country governed by a dictator. absolute authority in any sphere.
https://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dictatorsh...
Absolute mean unhindered by constitution and the law. Both exists (as it does in most dictatorships) but Singapore generally enjoys the rule of law. So not, actually not a dictionary-dictatorship.
For one, they both take political prisoners. They both abuse the judiciary as a means of silencing opposition. Show trials and trumped up charges against political opponents? Yep, and yep.
Saliently, from the Wikipedia article on this subject[0]:
> "International documents reflect that the Belarusian courts that are subject to an authoritarian executive apparatus, routinely disregard the rule of law and exist to rubber-stamp decisions made outside the courtroom; this is tantamount to the de facto non-existence of courts as impartial judicial forums."
This is pretty similar to the claims that have been leveled at Singapore in the past. The use of trumped-up criminal charges to silence and even imprison political dissidents.
They're even similar in the Press Freedom rankings (147th vs. 151st).
The only major difference is that Belarus has been frequently accused to racist oppression of their ethnic minorities, whereas Singapore's abuses do not seem to be race-based.
This would be summarily impossible in Belarus: http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013/05/mayday-protest-at-ho...
They're not a dictatorship either. Their political structure does have a working set of checks and balances that does seem to prevent an individual at the top from doing whatever they want. Call them a "paternalistic oligarchy" if you want, but "fascist dictatorship" is way out of line.
What it comes down to is rule by fear — Singaporeans, having read about said people being detained in the news, become conditioned into being scared of getting into trouble and breaking the law.
[1] http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2013/04/25/singapore-probes...
[2] http://www.lianainfilms.com/2013/02/in-which-lim-makes-me-ko...
On the other hand, I would not want to be anywhere near the place if the ruling party actually loses an election, as freedom is not high on their agenda.
Get help.
Yeah, Singapore is nothing like that. The fact that 20%+ of its population are immigrants, and how it embraces immigration, disproves your pet theory. Singaporeans don't have statues of their leaders in their homes, and they're not mobilizing anyone to fight some greater evil. Singaporeans are more devoted to their iPhones than their prime minister.
Using "fascism" loosely is just ignorance.
The common justification for loving Apple is that their imposition of rules is based on a fantastic focus on making things 'just work'. And that abiding by the rules is a small price to pay.
Also, let's not forget that Singapore is a country that's smaller than New York City. Of course, NYC is not as free as many places in the US either...
Signals at such high frequencies simply wouldn't penetrate the extremely dense urban landscape of Singapore other than along a narrow northern coastal strip.
You know, tell them "thanks, you did a great job developing this country, but we would like to take it from here and control our own future...".
What would happen? Is there any way to do this that would be successful?
(1) Much of the older generation and many newly naturalised immigrants feel that the incumbent government brought them to where they are today, and are willing to give up some liberties for economic success.
(2) Many of Singapore's constituencies are banded into groups for election and town management purposes. [1] The party in power has the advantage in that Cabinet ministers are members of the majority party appointed by the leader, enjoy a much higher media profile by virtue of their jobs, and are more often than not the heavyweight in a group electoral contest. This makes it difficult for opposing parties to win in a positive publicity contest, since they enjoy far fewer opportunities for positive media coverage.
(3) The perception of opposition quality in Singapore is still very negative. While there were opposition candidates with stellar educational and professional backgrounds in the previous election, much of the talent willing to enter politics tend to be courted by the leading party. Also, no opposition party thus far has spoken out against this policy.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_Representation_Constituen...
https://www.facebook.com/nicoleseahnsp/posts/494238060647270
"Online news sites that report regularly on issues relating to Singapore and have significant reach among readers here will require an individual license" This is so vague. If everyone on Facebook and Twitter is talking about Singapore (which are not news sites), would FB and Twitter require a license?
It says that it does not apply to blogs. So everything here is ok? Again, blogs/news site/video sites are so vague. News is essentially a content type, not a platform type. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/blogs/directory.html
I think this is unrealistic and is not going work in the long run.
Unfortunately it will be poorly implemented, and going to look like Chinas firewall.
I just wish instead of trying to spend money on silencing most of the bunch of morons who somehow got an audience on lies and rumours (most of the time) - they open up to more transparency and would somehow counter most of the bs articles.
They like to call themselves "alternative media" and everyone else are "politically correct corrupt media". Sigh.
ps Does anyone remember the series of images comparing George Orwell with someone else regarding the overload of bad/junk information? ds
I am absolutely certain Orson Welles would not be seen dead in your company (unfortunately, he's not around to complain).
Attitudes like yours have been exploited to justify every limitation on the freedom of speech in the history of limitations on freedom of speech - and it's very long. You're what a certain imposer of these limitations referred to a useful idiot.
Particularly:
"Since truth and reason have maintained their ground against false opinions in league with false facts, the press confined to truth needs no other legal restraint. The public judgment will correct false reasonings and opinions on a full hearing of all parties, and no other definite line can be drawn between the inestimable liberty of the press and its demoralizing licentiousness. If there be still improprieties which this rule would not restrain, its supplement must be sought in the censorship of public opinion." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:381
"From forty years' experience of the wretched guess-work of the newspapers of what is not done in open daylight, and of their falsehood even as to that, I rarely think them worth reading, and almost never worth notice." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1816. ME 14:430
In your quote he requires "the press confined to truth". But in the above, he also claims that the press is not confined to truth. Maybe they should have, at least, that much restriction.
Yes, there exists "laws provided by the States against false and defamatory publications", but even when not enforced, the citizens saw through it, "consolatory to the friend of man who believes that he may be trusted with the control of his own affairs".
Trying to regulate taste is pointless and would not end well.
I did not say George Orwell was behind the concept stated.
I did not agree with the solution/suggestion presented by the Singaporean government.
I said the hate-mongering articles/rumours posted by these sites for ad-money _IS A PROBLEM_ that can easily be handled by refuting their bs with proof and transparency.
Seriously, reading comprehension. Though I do think my sentences were poorly structured, it did not say what you you seem to think it said.
EDIT this response was submitted before "Though I do think my sentences were poorly structured, it did not say what you you seem to think it said." was added.
Again, it's poorly structured, but not as poorly as missing the entire word "transparency"
You're referring to Stuart McMillen's comic-style adaptation of a part of Neil Postman's book, "Amusing Ourselves to Death". Though McMillen has removed his poster at the request of Postman's estate [1], you can still find the comic on the internet [2].
1 = http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing-ours...
2 = http://www.juxtapoz.com/current/huxley-vs-orwell-in-graphic-...
I think the best way to do what Orson Welles tried to warn us about, is to "amuse your sheeps to death".
Just to reduce the mixing of themes, I wanted to comment that amusement is a big part of Huxley's Brave New World, but it really doesn't fit with Orwell's 1984. Postman's thesis is that Huxley, not Orwell, was more prescient in his fears for humanity.
Deleted comment