Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdtsc | Hacker News Reader

It is interesting to me how on HN there seems to be a disproportionate number (say relative to the general population) of Singapore fans. They pop up randomly and often. Say something negative about Singapore, sure enough, they'll chime in.

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?

View on HN

No, it's not just you. I'm genuinely curious to see how HN's pro-Singapore members will respond to this — particularly, as you observe, the ones who are otherwise ostensibly very libertarian.

What exactly does a libertarian supporter of Singapore look like, I wonder? Isn't Singapore sort of the opposite of a libertarian country? Are you sure such a beast exists?

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.)

There are real libertarians on HN, it is mostly a belief in a niche economic system that is mostly the opposite of communism. But many people are confused about the word, and a lot of young disillusioned Republicans have latched onto the movement without truly understanding its principles.

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...

The go-to response to criticism of Singapore, if you don't immediately concede the discussion, seems to be "It isn't like other places that you are use to. It is very different."

One of the most common criticisms of the place does seem to be that it is some sort of police state or fascist dictatorship.

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.

Yep, that is the sort of response I am referring to.

Also, it seems like you find "not as bad as America" to be more comforting than I do.

>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.

In that case, I don't know what you are driving at by bringing up America.

This is an American website with a predominantly American audience. I'd have thought this made the reason for the comparison fairly obvious.

Many of us don't live in America, especially at this time of the day.

This point would be rather more salient if you weren't from America and the commenter above you weren't also from America.

I think I might actually be the only person in this thread not from America.

That is definitely not true, read the comments.

That was not my confusion..... I think you know that.

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.

>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

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.

> one that most people on this website are largely familiar with, and largely agree is not a dictatorship or a police state.

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.

Were I actually making a sales pitch or trying to comfort you, believe me, you'd have a point.

You were trying to suggest that Singapore is not a police state by comparing it to "one that most people on this website are largely familiar with, and largely agree is not a dictatorship or a police state."

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.

>America is a police state.

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.

Well thank god we aren't as bad as those other guys. Huzzah us.

> [...] particularly, as you observe, the ones who are otherwise ostensibly very libertarian.

You might find http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/12/neocame... interesting. (Moldbug is crazy, but sometimes interesting.)

I guess I qualify pro-Singapore since I live here and often seem to be defending it (albeit mostly from people who grossly misunderstand the place and/or think that the ability to chew gum is some sort of god given right).

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.

Why would libertarians support a country with one of the strongest governments in the world? Their ministers are among the mostly highly-paid officials in the world!

'Support' is not a binary thing in such a complicated domain as governance, society and culture.

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.

Every country creates bad laws: CISPA, HADOPI... Every country infringes in freedom of the press and freedom of speech. The individuals laws/acts can't be defended, just like the country/system as a whole can't be judged on them alone.

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...

Ah, you are exercising the first rule of the wumao party:

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.

That's a pretty rude response to a fairly moderate comment.

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].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

Singapore is most definitely what China aspires to become.

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.

>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.

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.

You know we can't have any intelligent debate once you accuse someone of being a racist [1]. Since when does a geographic distinction become an ethnic one?

> 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.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law

>Ah..the old expat pissing contest. I didn't accuse anyone of being a wumao

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.

Hey, its your reputation if you want to drag out the racist whip.

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.

Don't worry. You wouldn't be the first white American expat in China to make sweeping prejudicial generalizations about the locals. It's depressingly common.

That's a pretty rude response to a fairly moderate comment.

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.

I didn't play the race card. I pointed it out.

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.

I don't see the grouping at all whatsoever.

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.

Wu mao = Derogatory terms used to describe anyone who isn't pro democracy or IS pro (chinese) communism. (in the context of china) i.e A P.R.C Government Apologist.

> 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.

You jumped from wu-mao to racist bigotry very quickly.

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.

>If someone criticizes your country, just point out how no country is perfect to deflect the criticism.

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.

Sorry, your last claim of Singapore being a real democracy is a lie. In Singapore, you cannot assemble and protest if you want to. You need to apply for a permission before. Opposition parties cannot organise rallies f they want to because it becomes 'unlawful assembly'. Newspapers cannot publish an article criticising government unless they can support it with a proof that can stand in a court and win a case, when the government sues them for libel with thousands and millions in penalties. (And Singapore government has not lost a single case against newspapers or opposition parties, be it NY times, Straits times). If opposition criticises the ruling leaders, government sues them and some courageous leaders who did that before became bankrupt. Singapore leaders are obsessed with stability and have managed to convince the general public that it is for the good of the people. So, many Singaporeans will defend this, if you say that this is not right. Similar thing exists in China where people are convinced that democracy will lead to instability in a large country like theirs and one-party rule is better for China.

>Sorry, your last claim of Singapore being a real democracy is a lie.

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.

I am saying 'you cannot protest without applying for a permission'. And I am not talking about gathering of hundreds of people, even 3-4 people cannot protest unless they have been permitted by the government. You said that 'most of what I have written is false'. 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.)

>I am saying 'you cannot protest without applying for a permission'.

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.

The civil rights in Singapore and US/UK are not even close: US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_of_the_United_S... UK: https://www.gov.uk/protests-and-marches-letting-the-police-k... (This is only when you are going to have a protest march and not when you are just going to speak.)

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).

The rules on protest certainly seem pretty close for both the UK and Singapore, as do the rules on libel. And I'm not a fan of either one in either country.

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.

> Is a total lie. And, yes, I will happily compare it to various "not perfect" non-dictatorships to make this point.

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.

> The restrictions on one's freedoms are not significantly greater than in Europe or the US.

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?

In Singapore I fear this much less: http://rt.com/usa/mortgage-fargo-wells-syldor-964/

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'm not sure what wells fargo foreclosing on someone has anything to do with freedom to criticize your government, but ok.

We were discussing general freedom in the thread below, not just freedom of expression.

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.

Your fixation on the US whenever somebody criticizes Singapore is downright bizarre.

Other than the UK (which I also compared it to) it's the one country that most people on this American website will have familiarity with.

Why, who should I comparing it with instead? Ecuador? Papua new guinea?

How about actually attempting to defend your government instead of just making absurd arguments about it being better than others. "Better than others" is a piss-poor defense. The refuge of those incapable of thinking of anything better to say of themselves.

I'm not interested in:

* 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...

This. Even though I am Singaporean, I do not consider myself pro-Singapore. In fact, I would like to leave at some point. However, I occasionally find myself... not defending Singapore, but opposing its detractors because the criticisms leveled are either inaccurate or unfair. For example, saying that littering in Singapore will get you caned is grossly inaccurate, and comparing it to regimes like North Korea is grossly unfair, kind of like forum moderators accused of being Nazis is unfair.

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 completely agree with you. I live in SG too and I love the government for all their efficiency, clean corruption-free, intellectual approach to managing the country, but hate it when they still have draconian measures like this to control the criticism. I find them stupid in this case, because most Singaporeans are happy with PAP and they will elect them anyway even if criticism is allowed.

I have lived in Singapore and still have many friends there. That's one of the main reasons for me to submit this article.

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.

> I'm really not sure if PAP would have the support it does if people could freely criticize it.

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...

I'm really not sure if PAP would have the support it does if people could freely criticize it.

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.

As a Singaporean who reads HN almost everyday for the last couple of years, I can't say I've seen Singapore related topics pop up so often.

I had a feeling this particular issue might come up though.

As a Malaysian who reads HN almost everyday, Singaporean stories appear way more frequently than Malaysian stories :)

> It is interesting to me how on HN there seems to be a disproportionate number (say relative to the general population) of Singapore fans.

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.

> Because libertarians can appreciate certain aspects of a country's policies without actually being in agreement with all of them?

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).

> I believe other HNers might admire Singapore for its excellent math/science education system.

>> 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.

Apart from the military service bit, the two comments above could apply to almost anyone that isn't deep into the Silicon Valley echo chamber. People who are not "stuck in the school > big MNC job > build connections > (possibly) venture out and do business" are outliers, not the other way around. Asians in general probably exhibit that mentality more often because Asian countries are relatively poor or were so at most a generation ago. When you are poor, it's tougher to take big risks as you don't have a family/friends/house/bank account to fall back on if you fail.

> Apart from the military service bit, the two comments above could apply to almost anyone that isn't deep into the Silicon Valley echo chamber.

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.

> 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.

In ordinary politics, everything is collapsed into "good" or "bad" and taken as a lump sum. Sides are formed largely by historical accident and their policy mix varies from year to year. However, everything the other team does is bad, everything my team does is good.

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.

it's perfectly possible that there are not really that many singapore defenders on the internet, but that the government/hardcore singapore supporters proactively search for stories about singapore and positively comment on them.

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.

No, nearly all of the people that I have seen support Singapore on HN are active contributors who comment on a wide variety of issues.

Also, you are probably thinking of the JIDF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force

Hmm, the JIDF may have been what I was thinking of, but as I recall, there is some kind of desktop program which streamlines the user registration/"upvoting" feature on any arbitrary website(perhaps by just making you solve the captcha, and automating the rest), which broadcasts relevant stories to pro-zionist netizens computers to instantaneously upvote or bury.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com