
Singapore teen blogger Amos Yee granted US asylum - hellofunk
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/25/asia/singapore-amos-yee-us-asylum/index.html
======
SEJeff
I've been to Singapore once and find it to be a beautiful city/state. That
being said, as an American, I do find some of the policies a bit disconcerting
as it reminds me of one of my favorite dystopian books, 1984.

* People love to talk about how bad Duerte is in the Philippines (he is), but in Singapore, 18oz of marijuana gets you a _mandatory_ death penalty: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_(Singapore...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_\(Singapore\))

* Singapore is a 1 party system that has been controlled by the same family (the lee family) since what, the 1920s? It isn't a democracy when there is one party, it is a monarchy, just call a spade a spade. It seems to work for them, but they're simply fooling themselves calling it that.

* You can not legally import chewing gum into Singapore and there is a $700 fine if you happen to spit it on the street: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore)

* They very much censor media / free speech. If they didn't, this article wouldn't be news.

* Littering or any petty theft can result in a caning, which depending on the severity, is split up over two days. This is to keep the punished from bleeding to death (seriously).

* Only the government elite can afford to drive vehicles. This is due to the taxes and registrations for even a 20 year old car being around 100,000 local currency. They force the public to use transit.

* They require iris scans of every citizen and permanent resident (as of Jan 2016)

on and on. Sure it is great and there is no crime and the economy looks great,
but it bothers me the lack of freedom to innovate, to do something different,
to be wrong. I can't quite place it, but never felt comfortable there even if
I'm safer in Singapore than I am here in Chicago where I currently type from.

~~~
sh33mp
There's a great deal of misinformation and wrong-headed insinuation in this
comment.

>People love to talk about how bad Duerte is in the Philippines (he is), but
in Singapore, 18oz of marijuana gets you a mandatory death penalty

There's a great deal of difference between endorsing extra-legal killings
(Duerte) and having laws with extremely harsh punishment (Singapore). The
reason for Singapore's harsh drug laws is that, at least up to 1-2 decades
ago, it was a major transport/business hub in the region of significant drug
trafficking. The overtly harsh policy was meant to fend off any chance of
Singapore becoming any sort of drug trafficking hub.

>Singapore is a 1 party system that has been controlled by the same family
(the lee family) since what, the 1920s?

Lee Kuan Yew took office as Prime Minister in 1959. Also, this notion that the
country has been "controlled" by the same family also needs to be put into
context - Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong have been two out of the three
Prime Ministers in Singapore's short history as a nation. Many members of the
extended Lee family hold prominent positions in the private sector and
government-linked corporations. So does the family hold a lot of influence?
Highly likely. But is it "controlled" by the family? I'd like to see more
evidence of that.

>there is a $700 fine if you happen to spit it on the street Which is akin to
a littering fine.

>They very much censor media / free speech. If they didn't, this article
wouldn't be news. Do they, though? There are 4 broad classes of "censorship"
you could talk about:

1) Yes, there are strong laws against inflammatory statements relating to race
and religion. These are significant, do curtail freedom of speech, and should
be challenged or at least debated. Unfortunately, Amos Yee ran afoul of this.
This is the only reason he's in trouble.

2) There is a requirement for websites having viewership above 50,000 a month
to register as a "news organization"[1]. I personally strongly disagree with
this, but also this has to date never been used to curtail speech. (Note: I'm
not a fan of the "but this law/policy hasn't been abused yet" as a defense for
a bad law/policy. I'm just stating the fact that it hasn't.)

3) Outright incitation of violence. I'm not sure how this varies across
different countries/states, but I don't think this uniquely Singaporean.

4) Libel/Slander. These laws are standard. Yes, the Lee family has gone after
opposition members who make factually false attacks.

But nested in the claim that "free speech is censored" is the insinuation that
people cannot criticize government officials and policy. There is almost
nothing further from the truth. In fact, Singaporeans are regularly self-
deprecating how much they complain and rag on the government for bad policies.
There is nearly no curtailment of the freedom to criticize, attack or badmouth
policy, government or government officials (up to libel and slander).

There is also no illusion about the biases of media Singaporeans consume.
Everybody in Singapore grows up knowing that the major news outlets have a
pro-government bias, being closely linked to people in government. Everybody
in Singapore grows up hearing the cliche that the history lessons are
"government propaganda".

Singaporeans are among the most internet-savvy country-population in the
world[2][3]. The Internet in Singapore, barring a laughable "symbolic list of
100 websites blocked"[3] is unfiltered. People who want to find alternative
views, who want to organize against policy, can.

>Littering or any petty theft can result in a caning, which depending on the
severity, is split up over two days. This is to keep the punished from
bleeding to death (seriously). Littering only results in fines. Vandalism can
and has resulted in caning. No doubt, caning (especially in the prison form)
is harsh, antiquated corporal punishment. But harsh is different from unjust.

>Only the government elite can afford to drive vehicles. This is due to the
taxes and registrations for even a 20 year old car being around 100,000 local
currency. They force the public to use transit.

The first statement is so blatantly false I'm not going to bother refuting it.
Cars are expensive and are a middle/middle-upper-class good. Singapore has a
system whereby ownership of a car requires a license that costs up to tens of
thousands of US dollars. This sounds over-the-top - but is also the correct
solution from an economists' point of view. The government wants to reduce the
number of cars on the road, so it taxes car owners. The cost of the license is
determined by supply and demand via a market mechanism (e.g. the price has
gone down during recessions). Meanwhile, the government plows significant
funds into expanding the public transport network. Of all the Singaporean
policies to complain about, transport is among one of the best thought-out,
_unless_ you already have a notion that a car is something everyone should
own.

>They require iris scans of every citizen and permanent resident (as of Jan
2016) As of Jan 2017[5]. And is this really different from finger-print scans?
Is this any more intrusive?

\---

There are many reasons to criticize Singapore, but please stick to facts.

[1] [http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/mda-rolls-out-
licence-...](http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/mda-rolls-out-licence-
scheme-for-news-websites) [2] [https://data.gov.sg/dataset/mobile-penetration-
rate](https://data.gov.sg/dataset/mobile-penetration-rate) [3]
[http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-
users/singapore/](http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/singapore/)
[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Singapo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Singapore#List_of_banned_websites)
[5] [http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/authorities-
to...](http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/authorities-to-collect-
iris-scans-from-singaporeans-prs-starting/3398728.html)

~~~
nojvek
In a way I agree with the transport choice. Gas guzzling cars are a terrible
choice for moving people around. It does fund a pretty massive industry of
mechanics, dealers, gas stations etc but for a small dense population like
Singapore it makes total sense to discourage cars.

------
johansch
All of the Singaporeans I know a) hate him, and b) totally missed the point he
was making, albeit somewhat ham-handedly.

~~~
Analemma_
Singapore's philosophy of governance is the same as the PRC's, just with
velvet gloves on. People look the other way because they've been able to keep
the standard of living up, but if there's ever a sustained economic downtown
and loud discontent with the PAP, the fiction will be disposed of quickly and
we'll find out how much of a democracy it really is.

~~~
noobermin
SG makes me wonder about my personal convictions regarding liberal democracy.
I still personally believe liberal democracy is best for those of us in the
West. Then again, we are hypocrites ourselves from funding Saudi Arabia to
electing Trump based on promises of draconian anti-liberalism, so I'm not sure
how well we can make the argument ourselves.

[0] I really hope this need not be said, but I mean liberalism not as in left
politics, but liberalism as in liberal democracy.

~~~
throwaway2048
I neither voted for trump, nor do I support Saudi Arabia

------
mark_l_watson
I worked in Singapore last April, a wonderful city/country. I can't speak to
how much 'freedom' there is in Singapore, but I would go back to work there in
a heartbeat if another good work opportunity occurs.

I noticed no poverty, everyone seemed busy and industrious. Anyway, I loved it
there.

~~~
kobeya
Poverty is easy to clean up when being poor is a crime.

~~~
noobermin
I take it you've never been to SG.

There are poor people and it isn't a crime to be poor.

~~~
kobeya
Homeless get jailed pretty quick. So there is a wealth floor below which you
are treated as a criminal.

~~~
nojvek
What is the state of jails though? Do they take care of the extreme poor and
give them some training so they can be functioning in society?

~~~
kobeya
[https://www.quora.com/What-is-life-like-in-a-Singaporean-
pri...](https://www.quora.com/What-is-life-like-in-a-Singaporean-
prison?share=1)

But I don't think the question matters. Prison could be relative heaven and
you'd still be denyng the basic human right to liberty.

------
HillaryBriss
apparently, one of the crimes Amos Yee was convicted of in Singapore involved
making disparaging remarks about both Muslims and Christians. and that sort of
speech can actually be a crime in Singapore (as it can in the EU).

so, after the US granted him asylum, some in the SG government noted that
there are plenty of other people in the world who are making these kinds of
illegal "hate speech" statements who ought to also be granted asylum in the
US.

as an American, i don't always know what to make of this. free speech means
different things in different democracies. the US definition of free speech
rights is not the only game in town, or even the best game in town (?).

fascinating.

~~~
adventured
> as an American, i don't always know what to make of this. free speech means
> different things in different democracies. the US definition of free speech
> rights is not the only game in town, or even the best game in town (?).

There isn't anything to think of it in that sense. Other nations / cultures
are free to establish whatever they decide are their rules around speech and
so to is the US. There isn't more to it than that: the US is one of the
strongest defenders when it comes to speech and has been for centuries.

I can say things about Trump any time I please (the Internet is of course
overflowing with the nastiest possible things directed at Trump, every insult
possible), that would get people arrested in the majority of nations on the
planet if directed at their leader/s. That principle has made the US stronger
rather than weaker. If your 'democracy' is so fragile that it can't allow for
an insult toward its leadership, well, good luck, you're not going to last
long.

In the US you can create rap videos, pretend-murdering the President. You can
create fantasy documentaries simulating murdering the President. I find those
things obnoxious and I'm glad they're protected speech, they're of no threat
to me or the President. I'll take that over prison for insulting the king
every day of the week.

~~~
johansch
I totally agree with the point you're making but I do want to make it clear
this is also (mostly) the case all over the "western world", for instance. (it
varies slightly country-by-country.)

------
justinclift
Ugh, heck no. Autoplay video when visiting the page.

Maybe link to a better page instead?

~~~
ekimekim
When I saw the page being slow to load and the video repeatedly trying to
play, refresh, play, try to play a different way (trying unsuccessfully to
circumvent my autoplay blocker), I just disabled javascript. Page loads
instantly and the content is right there with no visual clutter.

~~~
justinclift
Thanks, that's a good tip. :)

