Hacker News Reader

Comment by naithemilkman | Hacker News Reader

Dictator? I don't think you know what that word means. Maybe you should come visit and see exactly how off the mark your comments are.

View on HN

Singapore is a single-party state with almost no regards to human rights. Political dissidents are routinely either jailed and tortured or fined and driven out of the country.

Also one of the few countries in the world to use corporal punishment, such as canings, in response to crimes.

>routinely either jailed and tortured...

I'm not sure there is record of anyone being tortured, let alone it being routine?

One of my Singapore female friends pointed out you have a far lower chance of being raped or mugged if you walk around in Singapore than in most other countries and she considered that a more important than the ability to insult the government without them trying to sue you.

GP is likely referring to the on-going, completely sanctioned and culturally ingrained practice of corporal punishment for what would otherwise be minor offenses in the Western world. While likely not thought of "torture" in the minds of Singaporeans, the thought of corporal punishment is abhorrent to many of the 20-30 somethings in Western urban environments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_Act_(Singapore)

Are you trying to say it isn't abhorrent to people who are not in their 20s or living in urban areas? I don't think that's an accurate statement.

No, sorry, that statement wasn't meant to be exclusionary. People of all living situations and ages could definitely find it abhorrent. Just expressing my opinion that that specific demographic would likely slant extremely heavily towards calling it inhumane, if not outright torture. People in older generations are sometimes closer to having been the recipients of corporal punishment themsleves, whether in school or at home, and my vague inclination suggests that these practices might have continued longer in rural areas than in urban areas. In that way, they might not see it as inhumane, but younger generations might.

That may be true. You could make that kind of comparison about a lot of the human rights we enjoy vs. the benefits of their absence. In this case, there doesn't seem to be any obvious connection. How does silencing political speech prevent rape and mugging?

> One of my Singapore female friends pointed out you have a far lower chance of being raped or mugged if you walk around in Singapore than in most other countries and she considered that a more important than the ability to insult the government without them trying to sue you.

But when you put it this way, it sounds like there's a link between these two properties. I don't see how restricting free speech improves the safety of women.

I could have put that in a less muddled way. I think I was trying to get at that if you want to get on with life without being beaten, killed, imprisoned, tortured of raped you have a better chance of that in Singapore than many other countries. Indeed I imagine all of the above are statistically more likely in the US for example.

I don't think restricting freedom of speech helped directly but both things are to some extent the result of a rather authoritarian government. Singapore isn't perfect but probably has a better quality of life than many of its neighbours.

There seems to be a very loose definition of dictatorship going on here.

`Dictator`

a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force.

Singapore isn't a single-party state. There are other political parties that take part in the elections. Singapore's government is made up of members from mostly one party because the people voted them in. Let me repeat the last part: the citizens of Singapore voted the party in on their own accord. That's not a dictatorship. No one pointed a gun at my head and told me to vote for the incumbent party.

And as for your point about political dissidents, while that is true and is an important part of the history, it doesn't really happen now. What normally happens is that someone says something stupid that borders on libel and defamation and he gets sued. Is is heavy handed? Probably. Were they breaking the law? Yes. Is this a sign of dictatorship? On it's own, no.

There is heavy censorship, there is the death penalty, I believe Singapore still sell land mines, homosexuality is against the law. There are many flaws about Singapore but to call the state a dictatorship is putting the wrong label on the country.

When you say `Dictatorship`, I think North Korea, Iran. There is no way in the world Singapore even comes close to being a North Korea or an Iran.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com