
The Social Laboratory: Singapore's Surveillance State - fortepianissimo
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/29/the_social_laboratory_singapore_surveillance_state?page=full
======
nubela
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](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.

~~~
twic
Disgusting as in disgustingly incorrect, or as in describing disgusting
truths?

------
sytelus
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](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.

~~~
negamax
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?

~~~
contingencies
Yeah, they came to power on a platform of communism, switched viciously to
totalitarianism while befriending both Burmese junta / drug lords and
engineering a stockmarket perfectly designed to hide their ill-gotten gains.
Simultaneously they befriended the west and the US in particular and we all
know how much the US really cares about the human rights records of its
utility-allies in various global regions...
[http://thalassiana.blogspot.com/2011/02/list-of-dictators-
su...](http://thalassiana.blogspot.com/2011/02/list-of-dictators-supported-by-
united.html)

~~~
negamax
Lol! At the same time having highest HDI, highest per capita income (well a
massive increase), increase in health and education for the population. If
that's what dictatorships can do then I conquer them to be better than
democracy.

~~~
contingencies
... and here we have a prime example of the wholly considered view of the
typical Singaporean: an obedient slave to blinkered convenience and national
back-slapping, underpinned with an unspoken but heavily ingrained and readily
observed racism against people from other countries (Bangladesh, India to some
extent, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, even mainland China), and no respect
or value for fundamental human rights: _There are no such people so hopelessly
enslaved as those who believe they are free_ \- LAH!

~~~
negamax
I am from India. You are way to ignorant and prejudiced to see anything.

~~~
contingencies
That's a baseless personal accusation.

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.

~~~
frenchieinsg
I had a chat with the maid of a place I stayed in for a month. She was pinay
and very happy to be in Singapore, housed, fed and paid around $500 a month
with a few hours off on Sundays. The FOB expats of course fumed at the idea,
but the alternative for her was earning a fraction of that, stuck in a small
village, her life at risk from health issues or aggression.

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.

~~~
contingencies
Let's break this down. You've called drafting migrant workers from third world
countries defensible because they are paid more than in third world countries,
and you used the euphemism "available pool of talent" to describe base rate
unskilled labour.

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.

~~~
frenchieinsg
I misread your earlier position as assuming racism, and forced labour from the
Singaporean system, and defended accordingly. What you are now talking about,
specifically "people deserve in equal measure", is a completely different
subject, which refers to what rights are.

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.]

~~~
lazylizard
why can't maids and construction workers be paid market wages?

~~~
frenchieinsg
They are. The market rate for a maid might be $2k/month locally, and
$500/month + food, board and health insurance for a pinay. Singapore is rather
unique in that it accepts the existence of global labour market instead of
closing its borders (and understands that freeing the local population from
back breaking manual labour is generally a good thing, but that's a separate
issue). Market rates are much higher in Switzerland because the country has
almost no illegal labour (unlike the US, most EU countries, etc.) and issues
few visas for manual labour. But I remember, for example, the Geneva police
force being mostly French citizen, because they would do the job for 60k
CHF/year vs the 90k CHF/year a Swiss would want (I think this is changing as
the Swiss realize that foreigners don't really make motivated policemen). [A
lot of the complaints about minimum wage/welfare also stem from "let them eat
cake" syndrome, in my experience ("what do you mean, a family of 5 in a one
bedroom apartment? every child should have his own bedroom when growing
up!").]

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.

------
mingmecca
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.

~~~
ghshephard
How much time have you spent in Singapore?

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.

~~~
crdoconnor
>It's a pretty nice fishbowl life as long as you don't want to carry a gun, or
do drugs.

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?

~~~
nubela
It is not just you. As a native Singaporean, I had to turn on my VPN to read
this article and post this comment. I don't feel free here. It's not a nice
feeling, despite the "superficial goodness" foreigners love to talk about.

~~~
mdda
You're overstating : I'm sitting in Holland Village (Singapore) reading HN
just fine.

~~~
nubela
See my above post. Most Singaporean's don't care that the big G collects
everything about you.

~~~
mdda
With due respect, "I _had_ to turn on my VPN to read this article and post
this comment" is overstating. I understand that you may feel like you should
only read/post with the aid of a VPN : However, having lived in the US for
quite a while before arriving in SG, I think you're overestimating the reality
of American's Freedom of Speech (for non-US persons). Both of us are foreign
nationals w.r.t. the USA NSA. So they're legally free (under US law, as I
understand it) to monitor, store and correlate all our communications
(particularly since we're meeting at an end-point in the USA).

------
femto
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?

------
kryptiskt
William Gibson wrote a piece on Singapore for Wired in 1993, "Disneyland with
the Death Penalty":
[http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson.html](http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/1.04/gibson.html)

------
frenchieinsg
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.

~~~
crdoconnor
>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:

[https://wikileaks.org/cable/2004/10/04SINGAPORE3001.html](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).

~~~
frenchieinsg
Isn't government (even in a representative system) supposed to listen to the
people? So why complain when they do (by adopting opposition policies that the
people want)? [leaving aside the "within the constraints of respecting their
rights" part] Why is it bad, per se, that a single party has been in charge
without change?

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.

~~~
frenchieinsg
As an example of the problem with rumours in the press, look at the candidacy
of Herman Cain. The opposition (be that his own, or on the other side) dug up
a few women who had a dubious story of sexual harassment (something the US
public is sensitive to) and the press gladly ran with it. Cain's campaign was
shot down in literally days. From the little I followed, the accusations
turned out to be baseless, but it was too late for Cain. In Singapore, the
fear of rapid libel suits with proportional damage would have kept the press
from publishing without verifying facts. The original article, of course,
makes sure to leave just enough words in the right place to paint a very
different picture ("look at how they abuse the national defense theme").

~~~
crdoconnor
>In Singapore, the fear of rapid libel suits with proportional damage would
have kept the press from publishing without verifying facts.

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.

~~~
frenchieinsg
In Singapore Herman Cain would be a PAP MP :P

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)...

~~~
crdoconnor
>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...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-
Yamamah_arms_deal](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.

~~~
frenchieinsg
Well, I'm on an S2 pass (so not that high) but I know people from 2k/month to
30k/month, and they're all pretty happy - in particular, the lower classes
appear considerably happier than those in the UK, France, the US, and a half
dozen other countries I've lived in. It's irrelevant to the discussion,
though.

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.

~~~
lazylizard
but what exactly is 'this system'? apparently a former president asked to see
the books but was denied access? how does anyone know if its all bullshit?
maybe 'this system' is already bankrupt? who can tell if they wont show?

------
norswap
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.

Still, to be taken with a big grain of salt.

------
rodgerd
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.

~~~
MattHeard
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.

~~~
rodgerd
> but doesn't the Five Eyes agreement prevent members from spying on each
> other in exchange for better exchange of intelligence

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.

------
Fjejfjsicjshr
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.

~~~
towski
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.

~~~
crdoconnor
>You need to get a permit to give any kind of free speech in the 'free speech
area'.

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.

------
ghshephard
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).

~~~
icebraining
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.

------
ghshephard
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.

~~~
crdoconnor
>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.

~~~
lucaspiller
I was going to say this was pretty common in London. Even before the 2005
bombings, due to the IRA threat in the late 20th century. Bins were removed
from the underground in the early 90s after the bombing at Victoria station,
and from the City after the bombing in Bishopsgate.

Edit: I some words.

------
digitalengineer
> 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...

~~~
crdoconnor
Kiasu is more like "fear of missing out on a 40% off sale at H&M" than it is
fear of communism or terrorists.

~~~
yen223
Kiasu is more like "fear of getting an A- when your peers got an A+". It's a
fear of _losing to other people_ , not a fear of loss.

------
ghshephard
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.

~~~
dbcooper
Those changes you mention have all been in the direction of _increasing_
freedom.

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...](http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-
apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/)

~~~
ghshephard
I'm not actually arguing for, or against, censorship. My entire point was to
point out that different countries have different laws, each of whom (for the
most part) believe they are "right" at the time they have them. And, that when
evaluating some other country's laws, don't believe that they are "wrong" just
because they are different.

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.

~~~
dbcooper
Read the link I posted. The quote comes from a 1919 decision against Charles
Schenck's criticism of conscription. That is now clearly protected speech, and
those writings from Holmes certainly do not form any "foundation of American
attitudes towards free speech."

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."

~~~
ghshephard
I disagree with your statement that "You cannot yell fire in a crowded
theater" does not underly american attitudes towards free speech. It most
certainly does - every discussion I've ever heard regarding free speech and
its limitations typically references it. Now, whether it _should_ be part of
the foundation is another question.

