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.
>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.
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.
Now contrast this with the orwellian "free speech zones" that were set up around the time of the Republican convention. Or the violent beatings protestors in Zuccotti park got.
I think the difference between the kinds of protest possible in the US and Singapore are largely academic. There are onerous restrictions on both.
>Let me ask you - which court cases have been won by Newspapers and opposition parties against the government. Straits times reported back in 1990s that Prime minister Goh may be taking directions from then ex-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and they were sued and had to pay hefty sum of money, even though even the hardcore PAP loyalists will agree that he may indeed be taking directions from LKY. But, Straits times could not gather sufficient evidence to support the claim and had to suffer (and since then it hardly publishes anything that criticises the government.)
If the same lawsuit was launched in the UK (which has similarly onerous libel laws which Singapore's derive from), it would likely have been successful too.
And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
this law is considered an impediment to free speech in most modern world and is not practiced much in the US (because it contradicts with the first amendment).
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.
>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.
> 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.
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?
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
He could have used the terms "propaganda" or "astro turfing" instead he used the very ethnically charged (and derogatory) term "wu mao". Which is specifically Chinese, which is specifically NOT Singapore.
You are saying I'm rude for calling a spade a spade. Sorry, but making generalisations about "Asians" (which grouping Singaporeans and Chinese) is racism.
But you are right, it is a side track, and the more interesting discussion does centre around the "Is a good dictatorship better than a bad democracy?" or something of the like.
What you're saying is that anyone who compares anything to the wumao party is incapable of telling the difference between the two. That drawing parallels between it and something else is automatically racist.
I do not see any evidence to suggest that seanmcdirmid can't tell the difference between Singaporean and Chinese. My parsing of the post reads that he's comparing the behavior of Singapore-apologists to that of the wumao party. This seems uncharitable for sure, but racist is a stretch.
Honestly, it seems like you're jumping at shadows here. As an Asian, who cannot speak for any other Asian except myself, who has been subject to a hell of a lot of racism in my life, I simply don't see it here, and I see unsubstantiated accusations of racism as having a chilling effect on the conversation and making reasonable (if somewhat unkind) commentary verboten.
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.
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.
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.
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...