I'm a native-born Singaporean, served the National Service, and what-nots. I'm also the developer of GOM Chrome extension (http://getgom.com/sg), a Web-VPN Chrome extension that bypasses MDA (Media authority of Singapore) filters with SPDY-SSL proxies.
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.
Until I read this article, I thought Singapore was a heaven - thanks to likes of Derek Sivers who had been beating drums on this without ever mentioning the its other side: http://sivers.org/singapore. From now on I would read his stuff with huge grain of salt - or perhaps just stop reading him and wasting my time on these top tier bloggers who are out there to make money out of their readership.
It's pretty heavenly if you come here as a caucasian with lots of money (which sivers did), or a caucasian working for a multinational on an expat package.
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.
There's been so much negative exposure of Singapore's human rights record that I'm surprised this revelation is what makes you flip the bit. It's completely in line with policies the PAP has been implementing since independence.
You really have to visit the place and live there. Don't take either Sivers' words or this article. That place has won against all odds. They must have done and doing something right. Right?
Conversations about Singapore in the Anglosphere have always been more about projection than the reality of Signapore.
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.
This is some truly frightening stuff. There are large groups of people who relish the idea of a surveillance state in order to eliminate uncertainty in all things. And if privacy has to be sacrificed then so be it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd rather be dead than live in a fishbowl.
The point here is that Singaporean authorities, while enacting a huge amount of surveillance, still feel accountable to their constituents and try to make the best use of the data they get.
The attitude that you're accountable for the data you collected and that you actually have to do something useful with it (as in, disease prevention, prediction of future economic trends) seems alien to the US where limiting yourself to fighting terrorists (but leaving diseases, angry US nationals with guns, or stupid people with SUVs on the side) is seen as something perfectly rational to do.
And a central idea of the surveillance state (as we know it through Orwell and others) is that the state (surveillance or otherwise) is not accountable to its constituents, which is a much older idea but should frighten you just as much as living 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.
Singapore is an oceanic pinch point on its line of longitude. Just as lots of shipping containers go though its port, a lot of undersea optical fibres go though its switching centres. The article doesn't mention it, but logic would dictate that the surveillance would include the submarine fibres?
I think the article gets (as most Western media does) one thing very wrong: the nature of the relationship between the citizen and their government. What singles out PAP is that throughout its existence, it has offered the citizen exactly what they want and has had overwhelming popular support as a result. It certainly is not the dictatorship that is so often painted abroad (because, how else could you explain the same party getting re-elected over and over again? Surely LKY = Pinochet?). It is definitely not popular because it bribes its citizen with free stuff taken from other citizen ("a paternalistic government ensures people's basic needs -- housing, education, security -- in return for almost reverential deference") - if anything, most of the complaints I hear from Singaporeans complain about the LACK of free stuff.
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.
>What singles out PAP is that throughout its existence, it has offered the citizen exactly what they want and has had overwhelming popular support as a result.
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:
* 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).
This is an interesting contrarian view on surveillance, of how singaporeans exploit it to
produce a more harmonious society. It seems they are using it well, at least
insofar you can trust the reporting, but the very existence of this
infrastructure means it could be misused. In the same that an army that is meant
to protect against foreign threats could be used to mount a coup, the
surveillance meant to protect citizens could be used to enslave them instead. I
guess full transparency would be the solution: be very clear about what is
monitored, and why.
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.
Singapore's level of command and control seems incredibly obnoxious to me - but living in a Five Eyes country I'm part of a mesh with perhaps as much surveillance on it; the difference is that here in New Zealand it's used to bother half a dozen Communists, arrest a fat German, and suck up to the US government. If I'm going to live in a surveillance state anyway I might as well at least get some of the benefits.
> If I'm going to live in a surveillance state anyway
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.
Correct me please if I am wrong, but doesn't the Five Eyes agreement prevent members from spying on each other in exchange for better exchange of intelligence? Being in a Five Eyes country would likely reduce the amount of surveillance by other Five Eyes countries, not increase it.
Orwell predicted it, and now it's startling to happen. As we speak, the human individual is being deprecated by a new kind of organism. Cells are to us as we are to "it:" expendable little things to be controlled and regulated.
The age of the individual seems to be coming to a close.
>""If there is a single fundamental difference between the Western and Asian world view, it is the dichotomy between individual freedom and collective welfare," said Singapore businessman and former journalist Ho Kwon Ping in an address to lawyers on May 5, the day Fay was caned. "The Western cliché that it would be better for a guilty person to go free than to convict an innocent person is testimony to the importance of the individual. But an Asian perspective may well be that it is better that an innocent person be convicted if the common welfare is protected than for a guilty person to be free to inflict further harm on the community"
In an article about caning a us citizen: http://www.corpun.com/awfay9405.htm
I think the individual has always struggled against the system. It's just nature.
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.
Regarding the passport - I had to hand over my passport in Australia and Portugal to purchsse a SIM card, and I wasn't even allowed to buy one in Brazil, had to get a local to go buy one for me (and show their identification).
I have no idea where you bought your SIM here in Portugal, because you definitively don't need to hand over any ID, and you can charge them on any Payshop with cash.
Something to be aware of - Singapore is hyper aware of the terrorism threat. There is a non-stop video playing in every MRT (rapid transit) station showing a non-descript person blowing up the MRT - including the explosion and sound effects, and asking people to constantly be aware of their surroundings. They have (admittedly somewhat lax) security staff watching for bags at every entrance. They have removed all garbage cans from inside the MRT area.
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.
>There is a non-stop video playing in every MRT (rapid transit) station showing a non-descript person blowing up the MRT - including the explosion and sound effects, and asking people to constantly be aware of their surroundings.
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.
> the more Singapore has grown, the more Singaporeans fear loss. The colloquial word kiasu, which stems from a vernacular Chinese word that means "fear of losing," is a shorthand by which natives concisely convey the sense of vulnerability that seems coded into their social DNA
Fear as a means to bind a society. This is also used in the US correct? Fear of communism, socialism, terrorist...
Regarding the anti-hate speech laws, France, Canada, and other countries also have some pretty strict laws against the kind of hate speech you can utter.
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.
> 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."
[+] [-] nubela|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] twic|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sytelus|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crdoconnor|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] psykotic|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keypusher|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] negamax|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rodgerd|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ghshephard|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slurry|11 years ago|reply
I've always thought "Oh, Singapore," next thought: "where they cane people."
[+] [-] mingmecca|11 years ago|reply
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd rather be dead than live in a fishbowl.
[+] [-] sqrt17|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghshephard|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] femto|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kryptiskt|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frenchieinsg|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] crdoconnor|11 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] norswap|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rodgerd|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] venus|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] MattHeard|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fjejfjsicjshr|11 years ago|reply
The age of the individual seems to be coming to a close.
[+] [-] digitalengineer|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] towski|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Houshalter|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghshephard|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghshephard|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] crdoconnor|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] denzil_correa|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] digitalengineer|11 years ago|reply
Fear as a means to bind a society. This is also used in the US correct? Fear of communism, socialism, terrorist...
[+] [-] crdoconnor|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghshephard|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Sambdala|11 years ago|reply
> 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."
[+] [-] dbcooper|11 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] rodgerd|11 years ago|reply
And pornongraphy and state secrets and so on.