Singaporean Websites Must Pay To Mention Singapore And Not Mention Gay People
eff.org
eff.org
It is very strange. I don't care much for Singapore and don't usually think about it outside of HN. Much like I don't think about Peru or Qatar or Sweden. But the subject does come up on HN and sure enough there is a long series of arguments pro and against Singapore's political, economic and social setup.
Ok so they have canning, that's brutal, they don't mind executing people, but so do we in US apparently. The defense usually praises its economy and laws.
Now in this case with banning news related to homosexuality, I wonder how will the "enlightened" Westerners going to defend it, while also keeping up with the appearance of being modern libertarians. I tried playing devil's advocate and a plausible argument, but I couldn't. I thought of using religion as context (like say "it offends the religious sensitivities of the majority"), but it seems Singapore is a hodge podge when it comes to that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Singapore.
Anyway just pointing out the (meta?) topic of Singapore is an an interesting phenomenon here. Still not sure why. Is it just me that noticed it?
If there really is a pro-SG movement on HN, it's probably just reactionary. We think people think SG is some brutal dictatorship, so we're hyper-defensive (sensitive?). I'm surprised this surprises you...it's pretty common. Muslims are quick to point out not all muslims are terrorists, catholics that they aren't all pedophiles, whites that they aren't all bigots...
1. If someone criticizes your country, just point out how no country is perfect to deflect the criticism.
SG is a dictatorship, it is well known that the Lee family have been running it as their own little fief for awhile now by controlling the press so they can continue to win elections. The dictatorship is completely benevolent, non-brutal, and very business-oriented, so the people tend to be relatively happy (not free but rich!). Honestly, I'm not sure real democracy would have worked given the context SG is in. But that still doesn't excuse reality.
So what's wrong with the dictatorship if it is "completely benevolent, non-brutal, and very business-oriented"?
I realize that "all asians may look the same"[1], but Singapore isn't China[2].
I bring up the Wumao tactics because they apply almost verbatim here: the common "criticism of criticism" in Asian countries is to assert that you can't criticize unless you somehow are perfect. Since perfection doesn't exist, all criticism is therefore unwarranted.
Dictatorship is an unideal form of government in general, but sometimes can be the best of other possible evils. One would hope that Signapore could move towards being a real free society much more quickly than it is, but perhaps they have another 50 years to go or so.
As for your bigotry comment, it is unjustified.
This is some pretty heavy racial stereotyping.
Most of the "defenders" of Singapore here are probably white immigrants. Like me.
I'm not saying you can't criticize unless you're perfect.
It just sounds like that because I'm unfavorably comparing what you (probably) assume to be a Democracy - the United States with Singapore.
Not because I think that Singapore isn't often authoritarian, or that it should be free from criticism, but rather because your claims that it's a dictatorship are pure, unadulterated (and probably racist) bullshit.
> Most of the "defenders" of Singapore here are probably white immigrants. Like me.
Ah..the old expat pissing contest. I didn't accuse anyone of being a wumao, only that they were using the same "relevance fallacy" techniques. If that hurts, then "ouch," but calling me a racist is just immature.
> It just sounds like that because I'm unfavorably comparing what you (probably) assume to be a Democracy - the United States with Singapore.
No, it sounds like that because you love to eat red herrings. If we are talking about Singapore, keep it there, otherwise you are just committing one fallacy after the other.
You accused this guy (an immigrant, probably white), of using "wumao tactics":
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5817271
Later on, you elaborated on this: "I bring up the Wumao tactics because they apply almost verbatim here: the common "criticism of criticism" in Asian countries is to assert that you can't criticize unless you somehow are perfect."
>but calling me a racist is just immature.
If you hadn't first mentioned that these "argumentative tactics" were being used because the person voicing them was from an Asian country, I wouldn't be raising the possibility.
But yea, you did that.
Asia is definitely a place, not a race; many of us who live here are even Caucasians believe it or not. You could start calling me racist if I said "Han people like to argue this way" or "Malay people like to argue this way", but I merely stated that "Criticism in Asian countries is generally handled this way." I didn't specify the race or color of anyone's skin, and (white or otherwise) expat apologists are not uncommon where I live.
seanmcdirmid points out that being imperfect doesn't make your criticisms of others invalid. You respond by calling him a bigot and suggesting that he's racist to boot ("all asians may look the same").
As an Asian myself, this is uncalled for. Playing the race card when no such sentiment has been expressed weakens us when real racism occurs.
There is a larger, more worthwhile argument here, one that delves into very core personal values, about the fundamentals of governance. Is a completely orderly, benevolent dictatorship "better" (in however dimensions one defines it) than a less orderly system with more self-determination?
In opening up this argument you'll also run into the age-old struggle between common good and individual freedoms. Does maintaining an orderly, prosperous society justify the silencing, oppression, and imprisonment of a minority who disagree? If so, how far is too far - how small of a minority is okay to oppress, and at what point does it become not-okay?
There are some good arguments to be had here, so let's drop the mud-slinging and get on with it.
He could have used the terms "propaganda" or "astro turfing" instead he used the very ethnically charged (and derogatory) term "wu mao". Which is specifically Chinese, which is specifically NOT Singapore.
You are saying I'm rude for calling a spade a spade. Sorry, but making generalisations about "Asians" (which grouping Singaporeans and Chinese) is racism.
But you are right, it is a side track, and the more interesting discussion does centre around the "Is a good dictatorship better than a bad democracy?" or something of the like.
What you're saying is that anyone who compares anything to the wumao party is incapable of telling the difference between the two. That drawing parallels between it and something else is automatically racist.
I do not see any evidence to suggest that seanmcdirmid can't tell the difference between Singaporean and Chinese. My parsing of the post reads that he's comparing the behavior of Singapore-apologists to that of the wumao party. This seems uncharitable for sure, but racist is a stretch.
Honestly, it seems like you're jumping at shadows here. As an Asian, who cannot speak for any other Asian except myself, who has been subject to a hell of a lot of racism in my life, I simply don't see it here, and I see unsubstantiated accusations of racism as having a chilling effect on the conversation and making reasonable (if somewhat unkind) commentary verboten.
> What you're saying is that anyone who compares anything to the wumao party is incapable of telling the difference between the two. That drawing parallels between it and something else is automatically racist.
No, I'm saying in this instance (not any instance) they are not the same, and trying to imply they are the same, is bigotry. Meaning: Using prejudice to prejudge someones argument without actually addressing the merits of their argument.
Wumao simply identifies a government shill/apologist, and I never called anyone a wumao, I just repeated their tactics, which I happen to know.
So if the argument matches the wumao argument, why not call it out? What are people afraid of? To be honest, an apologist for any repressive regime would probably use similar relevance fallacies as a way to defend the undefendable. But I'm just not familiar with those.
I'd be the first person to agree on many of the criticisms, but still, this:
>SG is a dictatorship
Is a total lie. And, yes, I will happily compare it to various "not perfect" non-dictatorships to make this point.
>it is well known that the Lee family have been running it as their own little fief for awhile now by controlling the press so they can continue to win elections.
No, not really.
The reason for PAP continually winning elections has more to do with the fact that they dragged the country from being a 3rd world country on a par with Tanzania to being richer than America. That wins elections.
Now that the country is largely very wealthy, it has also become very conservative. If you removed all censorship laws, the party would still win, just by a smaller margin.
>The dictatorship is completely benevolent, non-brutal, and very business-oriented, so the people tend to be relatively happy (not free but rich!)
The restrictions on one's freedoms are not significantly greater than in Europe or the US.
>Honestly, I'm not sure real democracy would have worked given the context SG is in. But that still doesn't excuse reality.
It is every bit as real a democracy as the United States, which has similarly draconian controls over the press by the business elite, but which has deluded itself into somehow thinking it's the world's gold standard in freedom of expression.
No. I'm not claiming it is a "real" democracy. I'm not even sure what a "real" democracy is.
What I'm claiming is that it's no less a democracy than the United States or most of Europe.
Most of what you've written here is either downright false (e.g. "you can't protest" - there was a protest on immigration reform just a few weeks ago), OR, it is something that I could find an equally, maybe worse anti-democratic equivalent to in the United States or Europe.
Only somewhat true:
In Singapore, Speakers' Corner is an area located within Hong Lim Park where people can demonstrate, hold exhibitions and performances, and speak freely on most topics. It was launched on 1 September 2000 as a "free speech area" where speaking events could be held without the need to apply for a licence under the Public Entertainments Act (Cap. 257, 1985 Rev. Ed.), now the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (Cap. 257, 2001 Rev. Ed.) ("PEMA"). However, it was necessary for people to register their intention to speak at the venue with a police officer at the Kreta Ayer Neighbourhood Police Post any time within 30 days before the event, though there was no requirement for the police to be informed of the topic of the proposed speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner,_Singapore
Now contrast this with the orwellian "free speech zones" that were set up around the time of the Republican convention. Or the violent beatings protestors in Zuccotti park got.
I think the difference between the kinds of protest possible in the US and Singapore are largely academic. There are onerous restrictions on both.
>Let me ask you - which court cases have been won by Newspapers and opposition parties against the government. Straits times reported back in 1990s that Prime minister Goh may be taking directions from then ex-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and they were sued and had to pay hefty sum of money, even though even the hardcore PAP loyalists will agree that he may indeed be taking directions from LKY. But, Straits times could not gather sufficient evidence to support the claim and had to suffer (and since then it hardly publishes anything that criticises the government.)
If the same lawsuit was launched in the UK (which has similarly onerous libel laws which Singapore's derive from), it would likely have been successful too.
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law this law is considered an impediment to free speech in most modern world and is not practiced much in the US (because it contradicts with the first amendment).
This is not even counting the frankly brutal treatment that has been doled out to British and American protesters in the last 5 years (take the death of Ian Tomlinson, or the OWS beatings for example).
While Singapore's rules might be a bit more restrictive, I still think the idea that it pushes them over the invisible line from "democracy" to "police state" is pretty ridiculous.
>And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law this law is considered an impediment to free speech in most modern world and is not practiced much in the US
Definitely. Still doesn't invalidate Britain's status as a democracy, however.
Fair enough. The question is whether or not the Lee family qualifies as a dictatorship. Outwardly at least, it would appear as if they control much of the government.
> The reason for PAP continually winning elections has more to do with the fact that they dragged the country from being a 3rd world country on a par with Tanzania to being richer than America. That wins elections.
Great, they get a cookie! But I would feel better if there was some successful transition of government that involved someone opposing the previous. There has been no such transition in Singapore yet, and its not clear that such a transition is even permitted under the current political system.
> It is every bit as real a democracy as the United States, which has similarly draconian controls over the press by the business elite, but which has deluded itself into somehow thinking it's the world's gold standard in freedom of expression.
Bull. The US and most of the western democracies have a much more free press than Signapore does, and they have healthy adversarial political systems to boot to ensure that power isn't concentrated in one place for too long. These two features are not unrelated.
Is that really true? If I lived in singapore, I would be worried about saying anything critical of the government, to avoid things like this happening to me: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g_-nIBIauDZSr9xDuY8K2Ja8...
I live in the US (but not American), and I have and will say things critical of the government, and I do not fear any repercussions. I think this is fantastic.
Mind you I'm not talking about extreme things that will warrant investigation from the secret service, but stuff like what the blogger mentioned in the article said.
Are you saying that what's mentioned in the AFP article above doesn't happen? Or that I will indeed face repercussions for similar speech in the US, but I'm just too naive?
Swings and roundabouts. Both societies have their horrible points, and infringe on people's liberties in horrific ways.
In the case of blogging, though, yeah, the US has it better.
I think the freedom to keep one's home which you paid for from being stolen based upon a ridiculous technicality is a pretty important one.
And it is one, where, sadly, the US is not currently doing so well.
Why, who should I comparing it with instead? Ecuador? Papua new guinea?
* Defending this country's government.
* Being a salesperson for this country like you said I should be - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5818163
* Better at comforting you about the various ways this country is not so bad like you said I should be - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5817552
I'm simply refuting the bullshit that it's a police state.
If only it were actually that interesting here...
Regarding the issue in the OP, I would not even attempt to defend it. It sucks and is typical of the sort of stuff the government pulls that makes me want to leave.
I really liked the place, but for the complete control on media by the government and for this kind of measures to both stop criticism and "assure a peaceful society".
I'm really not sure if PAP would have the support it does if people could freely criticize it.
Another interesting related effect has also to do with how Singaporeans see themselves in relation to creativity and spontaneity due to the way things are structured there.
From another perspective, I think it is a harmful anti-democratic cycle that the PAP has enough voting power in Parliament to effectively amend the Singapore constitution without debate [1], and to implement regulations such as this without opening it up to prior public debate.
Other forms of democracy have their shortfalls as well. First-past-the-post, at least in my opinion, needs to be replaced.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Singapore#Amend...
Hence the new law.
Another interesting related effect has also to do with how Singaporeans see themselves in relation to creativity and spontaneity due to the way things are structured there.
Possible sample bias here, but a lot of the creative types I know plan to leave.
It seems like "libertarian" in the last six months is being used more and more often as a contentless slur on HN. Not even with the standard stereotypes from those who disagree (selfish, greedy, etc.), I mean just flat-out content-free, no apparent understanding that it is a word with some meaning (even if ultimately as fuzzy as any other major political label).
"What about Singapore?" seems like a decent challenge to a libertarian. (I'm just using that observation that that is a fair, nontrivial question to further my main point. It's not a request for 150 messages providing a libertarian critique of Singapore; I've got one, thanks.)
I always get giddy when a libertarian on reddit points Singapore out as the kind of country they want to live in: low taxes, high economic freedom! But that's only because they don't realize its an actual police state! (whereas we could argue that the USA is only partially a police state)
They then move onto talking about Hong Kong...
Mostly these accusations are made by people who have never even been to Singapore and never experienced a police state.
A lot of US criticism sounds awfully ironic, too, when you consider that the things being strongly criticized - lack of certain freedoms, for example - are often worse (or not much better) in America.
Also, it seems like you find "not as bad as America" to be more comforting than I do.
Nope, not in the slightest. This is your bias talking. It has nothing to do with me. I hate this law as much as anybody.
I think I might actually be the only person in this thread not from America.
If your motivation for pointing out that America has some extremely poor properties, even when held in comparison to Singapore, was to somehow reassure me about anything concerning Singapore, then your attempt fell flat.
Saying that the food your diner serves is better than burnt toast does not comfort me. Similarly, saying that you are better than America does not comfort me.
If I say "Your eggs are burnt", don't tell me "well the diner across the street sells burnt toast" and expect me to think better of you.
If your intent was not to comfort me in some way with this comparison, then I don't know what the point of the comparison was. I am confused as to why you are making comparisons to other countries, not why you are making a comparison to America in particular.
My motivation was not to reassure you about anything.
My point was to dismiss one of the more popular misconceptions about this country (that it is a police state/dictatorship) by comparing it with one that most people on this website are largely familiar with, and largely agree is not a dictatorship or a police state.
>I am confused as to why you are making comparisons to other countries, not why you are making a comparison to America in particular.
I am making comparison to countries that most readers of this site will be familiar with because most will not be familiar with Singapore.
I am confused as to why you are confused. This all seems painfully obvious to me.
You picked a poor country to compare it to then.
Congratulations, America is burnt toast and Singapore prides itself for being "better than burnt toast". Quite the sales pitch.
Your comparison does nothing of the sort though; America is a police state.
Just look at how many people we imprison (particularly in for-profit prisons), our absurd war on drugs with absolutely obscene punishments and classifications of drugs that defy scientific literature, the number of people executed in America every single year, America's ludicrous notion of civil forfeit that involves the government suing inanimate objects that are incapable of defending themselves, a country where the public prosecutor is a political position used as a stepping stone to greater politics (provided the politician in question can achieve high conviction rates at all costs...) police departments that are increasingly using "seized" property with no legitimate notion of due process to buy themselves "riot gear" and drones...
What is the point of looking at that list and saying "well we aren't that bad"? You are just telling me that your toast is better than burnt.
I am telling you that your toast may not be burnt, but your diner sure as shit still smells of smoke.
If you like burnt food, then knock yourself out, but don't pretend for an instant that it isn't burnt.
I thought this might be what you are getting at.
I suspect that, if you find somebody who has lived under the Stasi, or Ceaucescu in Romania, or in North Korea or Burma, or various other examples of actual police states, they'll fall all over themselves telling you how good you've got it.
>What is the point of looking at that list and saying "well we aren't that bad"?
Haha, people might be less inclined to visit me if they thought that the secret police might jail them for thought crime?
I dunno what to say other than "it's good to keep some sort of perspective". I certainly don't deny your criticisms are valid. I just think both societies have a whole lot more to go before they qualify as stasi-esque police states.
You might find http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/12/neocame... interesting. (Moldbug is crazy, but sometimes interesting.)
I hate the proposal, of course. Plain and simple.
It still doesn't make PAP a fascist dictatorship or a police state, though. Plus, while censorship and control over the American media is a lot more subtly done, I think it's almost as pervasive as it is here.
In many respects, Singapore has a small government which is efficient on the narrow set of things almost everyone agrees governments must do. That makes it worth learning from, in those respects.
In particular and with regard to your point about highly-paid officials, I'd prefer the US government be much smaller, but I'd happily pay US officials far more if they did fewer things very well with businesslike efficiency.
The things Singapore does well don't excuse their censorship... but every extant government is a mix of good and bad, legitimacy and abuse. We don't learn by rapidly sorting things into Manichean all-good or all-bad categories – even though activists of all creeds try to demand this sort of simplistic 'with us or against us' thinking. We learn by delaying judgement, studying the details, and being open to new information.
I had a feeling this particular issue might come up though.
I forget the exact name, but pro-Zionist peoples have a similar program which basically prompts them with a small button on their desktop, which automatically upvotes pro-israel stories, or downvotes anti-israel stories on social media sites.
Also, you are probably thinking of the JIDF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force
I wasn't trying to suggest that all pro-singapore commenters fit that mold, but that that possibility may explain why pro-singapore responses appear disproportionately in any article or comment involving singapore.
Because libertarians can appreciate certain aspects of a country's policies without actually being in agreement with all of them? Personally, I am not a fan of Singapore's social policies but I do admire its mostly laissez-faire economic policies. I believe other HNers might admire Singapore for its excellent math/science education system. I would guess that most HNers would disagree with its censorship policies.
The question is which aspects are separable and which ones are not. It would be just as simplistic to say that Singapore's economic liberalization could be separated from its repressive social policies.
> I believe other HNers might admire Singapore for its excellent math/science education system.
They definitely test well but creativity can be lacking (there are many exceptions of course).
>> They definitely test well but creativity is lacking.
I should add that many Singaporeans are still stuck in the "school > big MNC job > build connections > (possibly) venture out and do business" mentality. It doesn't help that mandatory military service conditions Singapore citizens to take orders from higher-ranked authority figures without questioning them.
Not true at all. Most American and European cities are hotbeds of creativity and subversion.
> Asians in general probably exhibit that mentality more often but that's because Asian countries are relatively poor or were poor only a generation ago.
For east Asia, I think it has more to do with Confucian influence. Even when China was the richest/most developed country in the world, their schooling system was still based on rote memorization and repetition.
Good point. I'll definitely have to consider how that fits with my thoughts on Asian/Chinese culture.
You can, if you wish, choose to think about these matters as if policies matter individually and collectively; rather than simply saying Team A Good, Team B Evil.
So, for example, I admire Singapore's relatively low taxes and business-friendly administration.
I can fear and detest their stultifying social policies.
See? That wasn't so hard.
I like that Australia has one of the best records of reform from the 80s through the 90s. And I hate that it basically stopped in the early 2000s.
See? That wasn't so hard.
OK I was totally confused by the HN headline, which makes it seem like you have to pay if you mention Singapore AND fail to mention gay people at all, as if the govt is saying "hey if you Manton us, you mention gay people too. otherwise you gotta pay."
of course, I go to the article and see that whoever submitted the article totally broke the grammar of the original headline, most lily to save space.
So even CNN, if they report Singapore stories, will be subject to this, though I doubt they will try to enforce this on international news agencies.
HN moderators came up with the current butchered title.
I'm looking forward to see if the government listens.
So that you can mention your country -- or partner -- without fear of economic repercussions or prison.
Definitely sounds like a surreal place.
You don't walk or talk worrying about the police or anything like that. You aren't going to be able to protest or stuff, but aside from the huge gap between rich and poor (a problem facing all Asian countries), there aren't huge issues to protest.
Edit: I was wrong to say the above. Apologies. Keeping it here though for context to comments below.
If history has taught us anything, it's that statements like this _do_ inevitably come back to bite you very, very hard.
Aside from the issues mentioned in the OP?
Or if you are gay? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_...
Or immigration policy? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21485729
Or...
I live in Singapore too, and while there are plenty of pluses there are also plenty of minuses and they shouldn't be minimized or ignored.
It is, after all, the league that Singapore wants to play in both in image and influence.
However I will not go as to say Singapore is less democratic due to this point.
(As an aside, it is crazy how many Americans seem to have crazy xenophobic attitudes, too. On their `left' and `right' of the political spectrum.)
Section 377A is pretty rarely (if ever) enforced nowadays, and judging by the government's current lacklustre response to protests against it, I have a feeling they'll probably be repealing it in the next couple of years.
There's even a gay village up in Changi.
>Or immigration policy? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21485729
The government has reacted to that by tightening up visa requirements. Probably not nearly as much as the protestors, but they're still paying attention and responding.
Not saying that these aren't issues, or that they shouldn't be protested, but compared to most other countries, you've still got it pretty good here.
This is a quote we all need to take to heart.
This is quite literally true in Dubai: http://gizmodo.com/5857475/without-trucks-the-tallest-buildi...
But I'm not sure I'd feel the same way if I were a native. The fact that I can buy a plane ticket tomorrow and be half way around the world any time makes it easier to ignore some of the realities that natives face without that freedom.
However, I personally think the government has implemented considerable measures to stop brain drain, including 4/6-year bond government university scholarships [2] and an intended lack of (usually bilateral) working holiday visas [3].
(Can't find any links aggregating such visas for Singapore citizens, but I found that New Zealand might be one of the few countries to offer such a visa [3]. There's no such programme for Australia [4], Canada [5] or the UK [6] — this could be contrasted with Malaysia, which has bilateral programmes with some of these countries.)
On the bright side, the USA offers the H1B1 non-immigrant-intent visa for Singapore citizens. [7]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Singapore...
[2] http://www.ifaq.gov.sg/psc/apps/fcd_faqmain.aspx#FAQ_34197
[3] http://www.mom.gov.sg/foreign-manpower/passes-visas/work-hol...
[4] http://www.immi.gov.au/visitors/working-holiday/visa-options...
[5] http://www.international.gc.ca/experience/intro_incoming-int...
[6] http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/visas-immigration/working/...
[7] http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_1391.h...