The Social Laboratory: Singapore's Surveillance State
foreignpolicy.com
foreignpolicy.com
I was going to write a long essay to lament how disgusting this article reads from the POV from a Singaporean , but well, I don't believe that the bulk of Singaporeans (who are largely in a blind pursuit of wealth via the rat's race) care enough, nor the government will get any better.
I was personally impressed by how light handed the country was with its enemies; for example, communist agitators and Chinese agents were merely exiled from the country (and in some cases later allowed back in), rather than jailed or executed as is more common in the region and in other "right wing" flavored governments.
True political discourse - and convincing arguments - sound more like this: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/antifed/main.htm
The thing is, I've read two pages of the stuff, and it's mostly name calling with a few names from history thrown in. Where is the reliable, third party evidence of so called human rights infringements? Plenty has been written on Abu Ghraib, for example, or Assad's use of chemical weapons. That's what I want to see - independent, solid evidence of human rights infringements and unfairness of courts. I've been pointed to plenty of independent blogs but never saw evidence of the widespread human rights abuses that Singapore is apparently committing. At worst, people dig up incidents from the creation of the country decades ago - where, should I remind you, LKY was actively fighting Maoist Chinese attempts at taking over the country by agents corrupting the political process!
I've lived and worked in countries where citizen truly are "labradors" with "no rights" and "at the mercy of a dictator". They looked nothing like Singapore. On the other hand, I've lived in countries where parties like the "Workers Party" have strongly influenced politics, and a few decades later, you get ghettos, no law zones, a crumbling economy, high unemployment and so on. In the case of emerging markets, they result in countries with zero or negative growth rates, GDP per capita a fiftieth of Singapore's, and widespread monopolies somehow connected to the government. I just don't see it here. More evidence?
(I'm going to be slow on this thread since it appears HN is now rate limiting me. It's a pleasure to have a conversation, nevertheless - thanks for participating.)
New accounts are rate limited because of past abuses. We marked your account legit to turn that off.
As far as I am concerned, they are internal enemies and I wish we had had a Lee Kuan Yew, or at least the willingness to accept that some ideologies are dangerous to prosperity and individual rights. The mob will, however, always vote away their freedom if led down the right salience tunnel. I recognize that I might be in the minority with these thoughts.
If you're not one of those, there are some significant disadvantages, but still maybe enough significant advantages for it to be a nice place to live.
Independent of the service itself, there are also some restrictions around male children's travel rights (for fear of them moving abroad before serving), which can interfere with things like visiting family or taking family vacations during a son's teenage years (from age 16, as I understand it). For me the idea that I could have a son "stuck" in Singapore unable to leave for something like 4 years total, even to visit his grandparents, is uncomfortable, and something I wouldn't want to impose on a kid (given, naturally, that I have other options), even if Singapore otherwise seemed a perfect fit for me.
Israel has a 3 year (boys, 2 year for girls) mandatory army service for permanent residents and citizens; I don't know how the Singaporean regime compares, but it is generally possible for an Israeli soldier to take a "leave of absence" to visit family during said mandatory service. If their parents are not permanent residents, they actually get help with the airfare and other stuff.
From talking to Israelis and Germans (former still has mandatory service, latter used to have) - it's a part of the culture that isn't as intimidating as it sounds to outsiders. In fact, in Israel it is (or at least was) called "the fusion plant", and looked at as the great equalizer the binds rich and poor equally into society - and avoiding it for a long time had a social stigma with dire consequences. Mileage May Vary.
The most consistently negative about it, at least of the small group of people I know, are the South Koreans, who see it as a hazing ritual. The Greeks (who still have it) and Italians (who used to) that I know are also pretty negative, but more in a "wow, that was a waste of N months of my life" sense, while the South Koreans are negative to another level. (I don't know if the Singaporean conscription experience is more like the South Korean, German, Greek, or Italian one.)
We technically have mandatory military service here (Denmark), but there is a test of mental/physical/etc. fitness to qualify, and it is more or less accepted that if you want to fail it you will be allowed to fail it. The military doesn't want to bother with people who don't want to be in it, and doesn't really need many conscripts these days anyway (what they do need more of are highly trained career soldiers, which they're having trouble recruiting enough of, but conscripts don't help them with that).
This is a non trivial point, since if you reside in Singapore, you're basically betting that the only threat the place will face (if not covered by Pax Americana, which is not a given for the next 30 years, as Singaporeans know since their country was effectively founded following events started by the British retiring warships 2 years early to pay for welfare housing; and since when Japan invaded, the Brits ran and it was the locals who took up guns and tried to defend their homes) is the comparatively easy to fight one from the north and south, against which SAF is large and well trained enough to provide a great deterrent. And as Singaporeans will say, those won't attack anyway since all of their politicians have stashed their money here.
It only takes a quick look at the color of the skin of people doing various jobs in Singapore to see the obvious culture of racism. Anyone can do it: just go there and see who cleans, serves food, drives taxis and buses, runs the banks, police and the government.
Denying the reality may be your personal choice, but don't shoot the messenger.
I haven't talked to construction workers, but I've briefly worked in parts of India with about the same level of earnings (<$70/month). Again, 16h days in the sweltering heat of Singaporean construction sites, and a first world infrastructure, are a HUGE improvement, and so is the much better salary.
It just so happens that the available pool of talent for this legal, structured work overwhelmingly lives in certain countries. But those who do it, seem pretty keen on the work and happy with its results - even if Berkeley residents are outraged that organic cucumbers and probiotic yogurt are not available for the raita. Happy to be proven wrong, by independent third party sources.
What happens to these people if they have an accident? I'm willing to bet they don't get invited to a Singaporean hospital and kept on for two years while they recover. What happens if they want to form a labour union? I'm willing to bet their visa is not renewed. What happens if they have an argument with an employer? I'm willing to bet they're sent packing immediately with no opportunity to find alternative work or access social services. These are only basic examples of security that people deserve in equal measure. A society that relies upon the exploitation of others is not a sustainable or just society, even if everyone in town agrees not to mention or think about the reality of the situation or if there are worse places in the world.
The pre-FDR position (to which I subscribe) considers individual rights to define the right to the pursuit of happiness, which ends up really being about property rights (that is, the right to keep what I have earned by exchanging my time and effort against financial or other compensation). These "rights" aren't magically obtained, they are earned by a population that first gains independence from its masters, and then structures its government not to set up new masters. Two examples are the creation of the USA, and Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore.
The "rights" you are arguing for imply a redefinition of "rights" that loosely say "a claim of a base level of happiness to be defined separately" (and then called health services, insurance, food, shelter, etc.). The part of the definition left out is "paid by whom". These "rights" are an infringement of true rights since they naturally imply that these resources will be taken from those who have them in order to be redistributed to those who do not. I moved halfway across the world specifically in protest against such a system (since my voting options were limited anyway). In my experience, those who advocate for FDR Bill of Rights type "rights" are impossible to debate with, because the chasm is philosophical. So I doubt we will ever agree.
From my point of view, even though they are acting in their self interest, the Singaporeans are doing Asia a great favour by sharing their wealth with those who did not take control of their country and set up institutions that protect individual rights, by making labour opportunities available to those outside the island. It is most definitely a "just" system (since foreign workers are protected under Singaporean law against infringements of their individual rights) and seems to be sustainable enough, January riots excepted (and those happened in part because of foreign workers having exactly the same rights, such as roaming around drunk, as the rest of the island).
[Regarding healthcare, I don't know about construction workers, but maids are covered by their employer as part of the package usually. It's very cheap here, since the government hasn't meddled with the insurance and healthcare industries. My health insurance is about a tenth of the US equivalent.]
That's incidentally the crux of the issue with US immigration policy. It used to be that anybody who made it there could stay, and an enormous number of dynasties were started by fresh immigrants (or second generation). As the welfare state was introduced, the borders had to close to avoid an influx of welfare seekers. As other countries got more competitive, there was further political pressure to impede foreign talent from competing with local talent; most recently, you see it in the H1B crisis as American developers suddenly have to contend with large numbers of well educated Chinese, Indian or even European developers willing to work for a lot less. Because the southern border was so hard to make hermetic, illegal immigration for manual labour became the norm and now about 3.5% of the US population (around 11 million) are illegals (and have limited individual rights as a result).
What is so unique about the Singaporean system is that they have managed to set up a system allowing foreigners to come work in the country and retain individual rights and the rule of law whilst being paid a market wage.
Well, no, it could be just random luck.
It's fairly common to laud Singapore as a kind of libertarian paradise, for example, while gliding over the government's heavy control over land use, for example.
I've always thought "Oh, Singapore," next thought: "where they cane people."
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd rather be dead than live in a fishbowl.
I've been here on and off for most of the last year. It's a beautiful country. You get a close-to-zero crime rate, almost zero violent crimes, impeccably clean transit system (and country in general). Incredibly civilized people, even in the lower socio-economic environs. And they've taken religious and social harmony to a whole new level.
It's a pretty nice fishbowl life as long as you don't want to carry a gun, or do drugs.
That said, the single best thing about Singapore is that it's a gateway to the rest of SEA. Changi is the best airport in the world, IMO, and you can be in Thailand or Vietnam in an hour for $100. No malls there! (Well not by CapitaMalls, anyway)
I thought YVR (Vancouver) was fast - (You submit your entry form, answer a couple questions on a kiosk, and then present it to an immigration person who makes sure you match the passport - about 2-3 minutes) - but Changi beats it hands down.
Departure is just as good - no long lines at security or worry about missing your flight - everything is done at the departure gate (which also makes a helluva lot more sense from a security perspective as well).
Makes SFO feel like a miserable cast-off of an Airport after spending time in Changi.
That title, albeit very amorphous, is definitely Bangkok's by any honest number (eg. flights) or remotely holistic cultural assessment.
I also think that MacRitchie Reservoir Park is a lot more fun to walk around (with its giant lizards, multicolored parrots, flying squirrels, hordes of monkeys and general lack of crowds) than Hyde Park or Central Park.
Or look "kind of Bangladeshi".
Or challenge any kind of social order.
Or get involved in domestic politics at all (as a foreigner).
Fwiw, I've been here longer than you. I enjoy the low crime rate, weather, transit system (excluding the erratic bus arrival times) and the privileges a white face affords me too.
I'm careful of what I say online though, because I know that they are listening closely and are likely to respond accordingly (probably listening even closer than the US monitors its citizens).
>And they've taken religious and social harmony to a whole new level.
A whole new level where the possibility of a race riot in Little India is non-existent?
Or a while new level where race riots in Little India happen, but they manage to put a nice enough spin on it to satisfy you?
They've had (multiple) Riots in Vancouver (though, usually involving Hockey, but also alcohol). I don't find that an indictment on Vancouver.
But, yes, I do agree, it's pretty clear that you don't want to discuss politics, and certainly don't want to get involved in them if you are a foreigner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_race_riots_in_Singapore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_race_riots_of_Singapore
You do realize that one of the core reasons the country EXISTS as a separate entity (kicked out of Malaysia) was because of race riots, don't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_singapore#Racial_te...
I don't even know of any other countries where race riots have played a greater role in the country's history.
Unique indeed.
>it's important to note, happened after someone was run over by a bus, was predominantly not involving singaporeans (mostly foreign workers), and involved a lot of alcohol.
It's important to note that the itinerant foreign workers are treated like shit and the reason they rioted was because the ambulance took forever and the guy who was ran over was dead by the time it came.
Alcohol was simply the fuel for the anger created by that.
But yea, racial harmony and all that.
Singapore is famous for the extreme of this, and the scary thing is it is China's main role model.
And do you have any supporting evidence for your claim that migrant labourers are any worse off in SG than they would be elsewhere, including their home countries? I had believed they were pretty well treated.
> the ambulance took forever and the guy who was ran over was dead by the time it came
Wonder how long it would have taken in India.
The other fact that one of the examples was in 1964 - Singapore only became an independent country in 1965 - probably didn't help either.
Not especially. Those riots were huge, vastly influential in the country's history and, according to the GP, non-existent.
They are the reason why the government hyperfocused on "racial harmony" ever since.
>And do you have any supporting evidence for your claim that migrant labourers are any worse off in SG than they would be elsewhere
Are you saying that because they would be killed by horrendously unsafe working conditions in Qatar that they should consider themselves lucky?
>I had believed they were pretty well treated.
No, they are explicitly third class citizens - kept in dormitories, bussed around on the back of trucks, banned from public places when their appearances there becomes 'unsightly'.
They are only treated well compared to Middle Eastern hellholes like Dubai, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
>Wonder how long it would have taken in India.
This is disturbingly similar to the rhetoric made during segregation in 1950s America: "the blacks have it better here than they would back home in Africa. Shut up.".
I will be very surprised if Comcast (my ISP) doesn't have fiber splitters along their backbones feeding my (and other people's) internet traffic to the NSA.
edit: Also, with the recent revelation that NSA targets Tor users, I would not be surprised if by virtue of using a VPN, you are automatically deemed more suspicious.
Yes, the US have periodic bouts of widespread semi-fascist repression (McCarthy, GWB etc), but they traditionally subside after a few years. TIA eventually generated Snowden, for instance, and in 20 years time it's very much possible that we'll look back at early 2000's paranoia as a dark age of sort. There is no indication of this ever happening in Singapore.
It might be due to issues of scale (repressing 3m people is much easier than doing the same to 400m) or culture (the whole Constitution / Freedom mindset in the US is very different from the "community first" approach more typical of Asian countries), but that's how it is.
Or chew gum?
The distinguishing feature of the Singaporean government is that it is immensely trusted by its citizen and foreign residents alike. This was an open selling point of PAP from its inception, symbolically represented in their white uniforms signifying that this administration would not be corrupted, and is a theme that LKY for example has brought up over and over again in his writings and speeches (and was a major reason for me to move here from Europe, where government officials are often considered, including by the citizenry, as above the law - cf Francois Mitterrand's taxpayer-funded secret family). I think of LKY's efforts to keep PAP clean and respectful of individual rights are much more important and significant than his more publicized efforts to make Singapore an attractive business destination (which after all has also been done elsewhere, from Dubai to the Chinese Special Economic Zones). It is telling that he was also conscious of things like externalities; Friedman-inspired Chile had polluted rivers and crowded roads whilst Singapore introduced market mechanisms to limit the impact of these things on citizen ("wa lao, COE so expensive lor"). The rule of law extends to all residents and applies uniformly; I am always somewhat surprised to see Americans criticize what they perceive as "unfair" working conditions for Filipino maids or Bengali construction workers, who are here on a well structured agreement and protected by Singaporean courts during their legal stay, whilst their economy is propped up by illegal immigrants always looking over his shoulder for the heavy handed "la migra".
This is in stark contrast with many other countries that value individual rights, they will usually assume that government agents need to be restrained from having the means of committing rights infringement and that a small state is the only way to achieve durable rights protection (e.g. Switzerland, which has what is probably the weakest Federal government in the world, or the US prior to FDR or even, philosophically, Hamilton). PAP is powerful because the citizen like what it has to offer and its track record has (so far) matched its sales pitch; as such it has more leeway than most governments (where the electorate prefers to operate with the assumption of "before you let this administration do this, imagine what the administration in 4 elections will do with it").
From a foreigner perspective, it's more helpful to view Singapore as a sort of shopping mall (it is usually compared to a corporation) rather than a nation state. It offers a certain package including the protection of your rights, but has more restrictive laws than is typical for rights-protecting nation states, just like a mall might forbid smoking in its corridors even if the country in which it operates allows it - and these laws were not arbitrarily decided, but made by the elected representatives of the citizenry. The most extraordinary thing to me is that you, the resident or citizen, are treated like a customer, even if the service provider can be a little old fashioned, and businesses don't usually abuse their customers because their customers then leave. When is the last time a government agent smiled to you?
You can enter Singapore and do business in it if you are willing to abide by its rules, and in return you get exactly what you might want as, say, an entrepreneur or talent for hire: a comfortable, very safe environment, low (in my view, "normal") taxes that are spent fairly efficiently, very low amounts of red tape (particularly when it comes to visa policy, although 2014 has been rocky on that front) and durable protection of your property rights regardless of who you are. The fact is, just as currency manipulation is impossible in a country that has to import everything, if the state of affairs were to change, a lot of us would just pack our suitcases, transfer our companies' assets somewhere else, and fly off to better climes. As far as I know, there are no better climes particularly for the (non-American) "everyman" who does not have a huge fortune to buy his way into another nice place. As for the article, its misrepresentation of the nature of the Singaporean government does make me question the accuracy of the rest.
While it is undoubtedly popular among a certain portion of its citizens, this is not the whole story. PAP is highly UNpopular among a lot of its citizens as well. Elections usually go 60/40 by the popular vote even though at best the opposition wins one or two constituencies. There's a huge number of disaffected people out there.
The US embassy wikileaks memo on the opposition kind of explains why:
https://wikileaks.org/cable/2004/10/04SINGAPORE3001.html
tl;dr:
* They have no real ideology other than "stay in power" (so can and do co-opt some opposition policies like 'increase class sizes' with ease).
* PAP have become absolute masters of divide and conquer. They pull a lot of tricks to prevent the opposition parties from uniting.
* They use legal means to quash the opposition - the most common being suing them into bankruptcy for libel.
* They have a stranglehold on the media with one or two exceptions (e.g. the notoriously crazy "The Real Singapore" website). The opposition has essentially no media presence on TV or in newspapers - only online.
Much as it irritates me the way that people describe the country as being a dictatorship, I find it equally irritating they deem many of the policies designed to cement the PAP's stranglehold on power as "pragmatic and necessary".
No, there's no real reason why Singaporeans couldn't enjoy equal rights similar to those of a Norwegian or an American (or at least, a pre-9/11 American). But, people are so used to the PAP and are kind of incapable of separating their fantastic policies (mercantilism / heavy investment in public infrastructure) from their corrupt ones (maintaining a stranglehold on the press/suing the opposition into oblivion).
Regarding libel, I'd much rather libel cases, than gag orders (e.g. Australia recently). From the limited amount of time I've looked into the issue, I don't see cases of blantent abuse of libel laws. Of course, the person getting sued and eventually bankrupted will have a major axe to grind (as per the Wikileaks link you link to), but are they a fair third party to take your opinion of the situation from? If 40% of the people disagree with PAP, why don't they help finance the defendant, instead of letting him go bankrupt?
Regarding a press strangehold, today, fewer and fewer people are reading physical papers. Plenty of sites - including Singapore Dissident, linked elsewhere - are available just fine on my home connection (maybe the government classified us as "ang moh" so we get better access?).
I'm not defending PAP for the sake of defending PAP. I'm just finding it hard to reconcile my observations with the criticisms of the country I hear over and over again.
In Singapore a Herman Cain wouldn't exist in the first place and would probably be sued into oblivion for libel himself. He wouldn't get a radio show either.
I've not yet heard of anybody successfully suing the PAP or anybody within it for libel either.
I did see (in the Straights Times) a PAP politician about 1.5 years ago go down for having accepted sexual favours from the sales staff of a corporation in exchange for granting that corporation government contracts (I can't remember any names with which to google the case). I loved the fact that in Singapore, this behaviour is punished and government members are held accountable. In many Western countries (not to mention guanxi), it's the accepted means of doing business. Let's not even get into what happened with US defense contracts in the last 10 years...
In my experience, all government officials I have known have been professional, rational people with great values, imbued by a sense of mission conspicuously absent from the civil servants I have known in other countries (who fit the "House of Cards"/"Yes Minister" profile more closely). I guess we'll know in 50 years when archives get declassified.
At the end of the day, we can't know what the opportunity cost of having all the talented politicians join PAP for career reasons is, simply because there is no equivalent anywhere in the world. Other small nations either do not have a strong Federal government (Switzerland), have a strong multi party system (Israel) or are controlled by outside interests (Hong Kong)...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal
"In 2010, BAE Systems pled guilty to a United States court, to charges of false accounting and making misleading statements in connection with the sales."
The China, the West and Singapore all enforce rulings against corruption sometimes... and sometimes not. I don't think you'll see any of the corrupt Indonesians who stash their money here get prosecuted for instance. They're even better protected by the financial secrecy laws than oligarchs in London are.
>In my experience, all government officials I have known have been professional, rational people with great values, imbued by a sense of mission conspicuously absent from the civil servants I have known in other countries (who fit the "House of Cards"/"Yes Minister" profile more closely).
Basically because they pay better here. That's good in some ways. In other "yes minister" countries they actually supply a state pension to poor people over the age of 65 instead of forcing them to scrape shit out of a food court toilet in the last pathetic years of their lives.
It's a country of polar opposites. The greatness of the country depends entirely upon your position in its class system, though. Based upon all of your answers, I'd say you're pretty far up, and believe me, I can well understand why you love it here.
The idea of money origin mattering to another nation state is a red herring, in this case. If somebody comes to a Swiss private bank with USD 500 million, unless the Swiss government has an agreement with the country from which the individual comes regarding money laundering, it's none of its business how the money was obtained. Refusing "corrupt Indonesian money" via Singapore law forbidding banks to take it, would be Singaporean interference in Indonesian sovereign affairs. Not good. Terrorism is a separate issue - you want to avoid terrorists using your banks, but that's not a problem for the bank, it's a problem for your foreign intelligence service (and in practice, is probably handled by larger agencies like the NSA via collaborative defense agreements).
Regarding food court retired workers, I prefer this system to the one in the West, which encourages recklessness with savings instead of responsibility, and will end spectacularly badly considering demographic trends. A state pension (i.e. redistribution) is also an infringement of the rights of savers to their own savings. But if we go down that path, I'm almost certainly philosophically the opposite of you (by putting the individual's rights before the "greater good") and we'll never agree, even if I understand where you might be coming from.
1) Even if they do, they should give credit where credit is due. They pretended the larger class sizes was entirely their idea. Maybe the opposition should have sued for libel ha ha ha.
2) There are some HIGHLY popular policies that they won't copy, and they are using their power to quash (e.g. minimum wage). This isn't because their ideology prohibits it. It's simply because they are greedy.
>Why is it bad, per se, that a single party has been in charge without change?
"Per se" it isn't. That's not the point.
>Regarding libel, I'd much rather libel cases, than gag orders
And I'd rather have libel than extra-judicial murder. That's not the point. If you want to argue that Singapore is a free and fair democracy the libel abuse has to go. YESTERDAY.
>I don't see cases of blantent abuse of libel laws.
There is one going on right now. A guy who blogged about financial impropriety is being sued personally by the prime minister. Assuming the allegations were true, he will still lose simply because proving the allegations true would require 10-50x more than he has in his legal fund.
Are the allegations true or false? We will never know. I guarantee it. No use pretending that we will. The court case certainly won't be illuminating.
Again: we can't pretend it's a free and fair democracy if they do this, and they do this CONSTANTLY.
>If 40% of the people disagree with PAP, why don't they help finance the defendant, instead of letting him go bankrupt?
Good luck with that!
Again: we can't pretend it's a free and fair democracy until they do sufficiently finance the defendant and they won't. Not now. Not ever. Not while the PAP is in charge.
>Regarding a press strangehold, today, fewer and fewer people are reading physical papers.
Could have fooled me. I see tons of people with the Straits times. They also watch television.
>Plenty of sites - including Singapore Dissident, linked elsewhere - are available just fine on my home connection
Yes, these things exist. I already mentioned this somewhere. They're the only media the opposition really has - and it's poorly funded and badly run and the government is trying to gain more and more control over them too (you heard of the recent blogging laws I presume?).
>I'm not defending PAP for the sake of defending PAP. I'm just finding it hard to reconcile my observations with the criticisms of the country I hear over and over again
Which of my criticisms do you find hard to reconcile?
I live here too remember. I find it easy to reconcile.
On 2), having read quite a bit by LKY, I consider policies like minimum wage to be ideologically against what PAP stands for (or what Singapore has become). Minimum wage is a rights infringement, in that it impedes consenting individuals from forming contracts at terms deemed "illegal". It's been catastrophic in most countries it has been tried, although it's now so well accepted in the West that nobody thinks of criticizing it anymore.
For example, I remember Milton Friedman commenting on how minimum wage had artificially restricted the number of fast food jobs available to unskilled teenagers, causing whites to be disproportionately hired over blacks, causing higher black unemployment amongst the working class.
Minimum wage policy is being continuously introduced and voted down with over 70% of the popular vote in Switzerland, where a waitress at a cafe can easily make 6k CHF/month thanks to market forces.
The issue of course is that PAP can't outright say that its policy is often inspired by the Founding Fathers (although I saw at least one LKY speech quoting the US Constitution) but part of why I moved, was that it was pretty clear what ideological lines the country followed.
I find it hard to reconcile the criticism of the government as being corrupt, with the utter lack of actual evidence of, say, government contracts landing in the Lee family's pockets (if anything, Temasek seems to acquire companies AFTER they become successful, which is what you'd want them to do as a "shareholder"), or libel cases being judged immediately against a valid case for political reasons. It seems to me, considering the number of exiled Marxist lawyers, that if such evidence was around it would be well publicized and easy to find. (and reading the Wikipedia article, again on my home connection, completely unimpeded by government censorship, I see that he did raise $110,000 in legal fund aid to carry the case to completion).
The blogger case for example: * Narrative 1: blogger discovers great financial impropriety, attempts to bring it to light, gets sued to bankrupcy and fired as a result of government pressure. * Narrative 2: hospital employee uses company time and assets to blog during work hours (which is against his contract), gets fired as a result, independently of what he has discovered. Court digs, finds allegations to be untrue (and everything I've read seems to point at Roy Ngerng faking his data to make a point), finds against the chap, who continues to fight a PR battle against PAP nevertheless, playing on people's tendency to side with the underdog, particularly one fighting the billionaire son of Goliath.
How do you pick a side?
Where is the evidence? Where are the hard facts? That's all I ask for. Until then, I subscribe to the very American concept of innocent until proven guilty.
The question is not whether you support the wellbeing of others' political careers, it is whether you support the efforts to squash all opposition to the hegemony via legal means or otherwise.
I am frankly not comfortable with the PAP holding so much power, this is why I consider it my problem. The more they manage to destroy the opposition with tactics like these the more they can operate with impunity. Impunity means they don't HAVE to listen to the opposition at all - something apparently you like.
>having read quite a bit by LKY, I consider policies like minimum wage to be ideologically against what PAP stands for (or what Singapore has become).
It's not especially. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them implement it at some point if the cries become loud enough.
If you truly have read a lot of LKY then you should know that he puts pragmatism above all else.
>Minimum wage is a rights infringement, in that it impedes consenting individuals from forming contracts at terms deemed "illegal".
Libertarianism (20th/21st century) is kind of stupid and every privileged young white guy should probably grow out of it by their mid 20s. The unethical AXIOMATIC heart of its ideology is that "strong property rights" matter more than poverty. It's a corrupt justification for the abuse of the rich and powerful in other words.
>It's been catastrophic in most countries it has been tried
I don't know if this could be a more absurd statement. It's only 'catastrophic' for profit margins of companies that take advantage of people teetering on the edge of poverty. The economic incidence falls almost entirely on them (even the effect on inflation is very tempered, and unemployment almost never goes up).
>For example, I remember Milton Friedman
An absolute joke of an economist, who thought that you could control employment and inflation through interest rates (proven utterly and totally 100% wrong sine 2008).
>commenting on how minimum wage had artificially restricted the number of fast food jobs available to unskilled teenagers, causing whites to be disproportionately hired over blacks, causing higher black unemployment amongst the working class.
I'm always kind of wary about when rich, privileged white guys tell the unprivileged underclasses what's good for them. Especially when the empirical evidence for their claims is light.
There's been plenty of empirical research that demonstrates the effect on job losses is negligible and a lot of hot air by apologist for the corporate/oligarch classes' whose profit margins depend upon a low/non-existent minimum wage still claiming that it's all wrong. Lies.
>Minimum wage policy is being continuously introduced and voted down with over 70% of the popular vote in Switzerland
The minimum wage introduced that got voted down would have been THE highest in the world.
>where a waitress at a cafe can easily make 6k CHF/month thanks to market forces.
Or because of the same trade unions that actually got the vote for the $25 minimum wage introduced in the first place.
>The issue of course is that PAP can't outright say that its policy is often inspired by the Founding Fathers
They draw inspiration from all over the place, but the only real ideology they have is pragmatism. They hardly paid much attention to the 1st, 2nd or 4th amendments to the constitution did they?
>I find it hard to reconcile the criticism of the government as being corrupt, with the utter lack of actual evidence of, say, government contracts landing in the Lee family's pockets
Why would he do that when he can just pay himself the highest prime ministerial salary in the world?
What evidence there is (I believe there are bits and pieces, but from relatively unreliable sources) gets squashed more often than elsewhere because there's no free media and if you breathe a word of it without cast iron proof you will generally be sued into bankruptcy. Who is therefore going to dig for impropriety? Nobody.
So, even if he WERE corrupt as hell, I doubt we'd hear about it. The stranglehold on information is too tight.
LKY's son is prime minister now, too. If that doesn't scream nepotism, I don't know what does.
>(if anything, Temasek seems to acquire companies AFTER they become successful, which is what you'd want them to do as a "shareholder"),
Yeah, but pay attention to who they put on the board and what salaries they are paid.
>(and reading the Wikipedia article, again on my home connection, completely unimpeded by government censorship, I see that he did raise $110,000 in legal fund aid to carry the case to completion).
Gosh, you don't live in China. How wonderful.
Yes, he raised $100k. Not enough to prove high level corruption. Not even close. Know how much a good forensic accountant is worth? Know how much of their time you'd need? I'd estimate probably at least 2 good ones for one or two years for a case like this to have a shot at making a good case. I'd expect bureaucratic stonewalling even then.
>Court digs, finds allegations to be untrue
Court DIGS? I really don't think so. Court does what court is ordered if court knows what's best for it.
>How do you pick a side?
I haven't picked a side. You can't pick a side on this case. It's like like being asked to pick a side in a murder case in the middle ages where all of the evidence is hearsay. Any third party who claims to know which side is lying and which side isn't is lying themselves.
I SUSPECT that this allegation might be false simply because it's an allegation where the PM decided to use the nuclear option. It's a good tactic to scare anybody else with evidence into shutting up if occasionally you pick off somebody who did make an unprovable false accusation. I don't really know though. Even if he didn't, the chances of the case going his way are nil.
I'm saying that if the court case is to be at all meaningful then the defence fund needs to be charged up to at least $4-5 million dollars before we can be convinced that the trial was fair, because PROVING financial impropriety at that level (which is what he is being asked to do) IS ACTUALLY that expensive.
If they don't do that (and they won't) then it's a sham trial. End. of. story.
>Where is the evidence? Where are the hard facts? That's all I ask for.
Here's the thing: you're NOT asking for that. You're offering up a weak apology for the ruling party who intentionally created a rigged court case.
The US does this too, of course. Plenty of people are charged with a crime and have their assets confiscated, meaning that they can't put up a meaningful legal defense. It's one of many ways the state abuses its power.
It's even more dramatic if you log scale it: one little island somehow raises itself from one group to the next (and avoids the dramatic rise and crash typical of a FDI bubble). But I'm not going to debate libertarianism (or Objectivism) vs social-democracy vs whatever else, or any economics, because that leads absolutely nowhere and each side is firmly convinced they are right, based on facts and their value system, other than to say "white young men grow out of it in their 20s" strikes me as a poor argument (as are all ad hominem). FWIW, I also don't buy the "check your privilege" line. I've already put on my "trade", my money where my mouth is, by moving to Singapore.
High civil service salaries are a demonstrated way to avoid corruption by raising its economic cost to prohibitive levels, in emerging markets, and to attract the best talent, in developed countries. You can disagree, you probably will - Thatcher was a fan, and I a fan of hers. I also belong firmly in the camp that would rather hire an exceptional developer for $600k/year than 6 average ones for $100k/year, for the same reasons (the cost of a bad hire is exponentially higher than the money spent).
Regarding LKY's pragmatism, sure, that's what he preached and wrote about. 40 years of action shows a certain alignment with perhaps Jefferson or Patrick Henry, that few politicians today have had the balls to so systematically copy. Whether he derived it himself from "pragmatism" or (more likely) read up on history and watched the world, drew his own conclusions and then carefully avoided ad hominems by creating his own brand of politics doesn't matter to me - I see a 40 year track record and it is good - that PAP is systematically blocking attempts at creating a minimum wage is one more data point.
In fact, this track record leads me to rethink my view of government. Overwhelming global historical evidence tells you not to trust government and to keep it small. But Singapore's story flies in the face of this.
Regarding the CPF case, only time will tell. It's not something that keeps me awake at night. FWIW I think PM Lee ought to have accepted the small damages, strategically (as the blogger would then have publicly admitted not having evidence), but I understand his being more than a little annoyed at being accused of corruption, if it was unwarranted.
It seems to be the only evidence of impropriety brought forward, and I disagree with you that other evidence could meaningfully "just disappear" in the 21st century. Why did nothing surface on Wikileaks except that fairly mild assessment of the opposition? The US government has the means for "forensic accounting" as you call it. Why aren't the exiled (and perfectly free and ressourceful) Singaporean opponents finding things out? One option is that the ISD is extraordinarily good, the other option is that there's nothing to find out because well paid and competent civil servants see no point in cheating when it is more profitable to be honest in a system designed that way.
I do agree with you on one thing: we don't know where or how this will end. My experience has been (although it is Western) that it is incredibly hard for second or third generation wealth to maintain the same quality of thinking that the dynasty creator had. The problem is thus whether LKY has been able to create a legacy that will outlive him and his family (in which case Singapore has great days ahead) or whether the island will finish like Venice, with its ruling class making it increasingly difficult for entrepreneurs and those not born within it, walling off the moat, enjoying a few decades of decline and toasting the fall with overtaxed Dom. Very, very few emerging markets actually emerge, statistically, and for good reasons (cf Robinson/Acemoglu, although you might disagree).
The article is also insightful in that it goes over surface and vague considerations such as the law and privacy but dives into "the social contract" and culture as a whole. Interestingly, it seems that Singaporeans officials are very aware of these realities and are willing to adapt to the will or "mood" of the population. The articles makes them sound as much more capable than their occidental counterparts. One could probably argue that this is a result of the unique political stability of Singapore which leads to career public servants rather than politician whose sole concern is to get reelected and hold onto a shred of power for as long as they can.
Still, to be taken with a big grain of salt.
Well that's just it, isn't it. I view this kind of thing as absolutely inevitable, but it can happen covertly, with unknown motives, no transparency, no checks and balances - or overtly, for the good of society and with transparency.
To me, the surveillance state is kind of the flip side of the war on drugs. Drugs are impossible to fight and we may as well just bring it out into the open and regulate it. Well, this is the government version - it will happen, so let's bring it into the light. It's happening anyway, and is as unstoppable as the technology which enables it. We may as well accept that, and have a mature conversation about how to manage it for the good of all.
Quite the opposite: the Five Eyes countries circumvent their laws against using their espionage agencies for domestic spying by handing the domestic data over to an ally for analysis. So the GCHQ spy on US citizens with the tacit agreement of the NSA and vice versa.
The age of the individual seems to be coming to a close.
I'm just surprised anyone would be excited about Singapore. You need to get a permit to give any kind of free speech in the 'free speech area'. Unsurprisingly, they don't grant permits to people who want to speak their mind.
This information is out of date. They changed the law on that some years ago.
The 'free speech area' (Hong Lim Park) is just the only area where you can have a demonstration WITHOUT applying for a permit.
The normal anti-free speech laws applying (i.e. you're not allowed to incite racial hatred in Hong Lim Park either), but you're allowed to go there and demonstrate without a permit (with a few restrictions). IIRC, they held the pink dot rally there.
They had a protest against immigration somewhere up in the north east too. They allowed that to happen (protest application was clearly approved) even though they were protesting government policy and closely allied with the opposition parties.
These protest laws and their application aren't really a whole lot different to what you see in the west these days. You think the West does free speech better? Check out what they did to Occupy.
The country is very, very safe because of the low crime, so, as a result, Terrorism is one of the most significant risks to be watchful for.
It's not non-stop. I see it maybe 1 time in 7 or 8. Half the time they're playing a trailer for some movie.
This kind of thing is not out of place in London or New York either. Actually, in London the anti-terrorism posters are way more Orwellian.
Edit: I some words.
Fear as a means to bind a society. This is also used in the US correct? Fear of communism, socialism, terrorist...
It's interesting that Americans just assume that you should be legally allowed to spout whatever kind of vile suits your fancy, without any legal implications.
I don't think there is any "absolute" right or wrong way of regulating speech (even Americans have laws against defamation, libel, and shouting"fire" in a crowded theater) - but, it's important to recognize that just because other people approach it differently - it doesn't mean that they are doing it the "wrong" way.
It's useful to look at how American Laws (and attitudes) have changed over the last century or so around homosexuality, same sex marriage, interracial marriage, prohibition, heck, even the right for women to vote - to see how that even in a single country, the "Right" and the "Wrong" can evolve/change in a very short period of time.
Please refrain from the lazy "fire in a crowded theatre" censorship apologia in future. It doesn't add anything to an argument for censorship.
http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hac...
And the "fire in a crowded theater" phrase is a short-hand to refer to the Supreme Court Argument, which forms the foundation of american attitudes towards free speech. It's faster than copy and pasting the entire precedent. I'm sorry if it offended you.
It's a lazy trick to try to appeal to authority, when all you are saying is that you think that "some speech should not be protected."
And pornongraphy and state secrets and so on.
> But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.
> First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU's Gabe Rottman explains, "It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience."
> In what would become his second most famous phrase, Holmes wrote in Abrams that the marketplace of ideas offered the best solution for tamping down offensive speech: "The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out."