5 ms·

Just so you know, this law doesn't apply the govt themselves. In 2018, a historian criticized this and said that the govt broke this fake news law and that the

Just so you know, this law doesn't apply the govt themselves. In 2018, a historian criticized this and said that the govt broke this fake news law and that the law should apply to govt too. However, govt said that the historian's evidence were incorrect even though no other historians dispute this fact. See: https://medium.com/@pj_85357/follow-up-submission-to-the-select-committee-on-deliberate-online-falsehoods-parliament-of-f1c34a2d9365 https://medium.com/@pj_85357/follow-up-submission-to-the-sel...

powerapple 7y ago
did he go to court and a judge said the evidence were incorrect?
- tdsamardzhiev 7y ago
  one does not simply sue a military dictatorship
  - creddit 7y ago
    I'm not sure Singapore's government falls under a military dictatorship by any means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Singapore
    - kbcool 7y ago
      When the dictatorship controls the military you can pretty safely say they're a military dictatorship.
      - 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
        No, it's a military dictatorship when the military controls the country, which is fairly obviously not the case in Singapore.
        tdsamardzhiev 7y ago
        Not needing to exercise one's power =/= not being in control of things.
        9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
        In Singapore, it's the prime minister who calls the shots. Period.
        tdsamardzhiev 7y ago
        Who's been in charge for 16 years, and who just happens to be a military general and the eldest son of the previous prime minister. But hey, I said what had to be said, and see no point arguing about the formalities. I'll let HN users decide for themselves.
        squiggleblaz 7y ago
        > Who's been in charge for 16 years, and who just happens to be a military general and the eldest son of the previous prime minister. That actually weakens the claim that it's a military dictatorship. If the army is controlled by civilians, its not a military dictatorship. If a person becomes leader of the military due to civilian connections, then it's not a military dictatorship. A military dictatorship is when a person becomes civilian leader by virtue of their military leadership. If the son of the civilian prime minister first gets to take over the army, it doesn't change the fact that he's fundamentally a civilian and the civilians are controlling - inside and out - the military. It reinforces it. He led the army and the country because of his civilian credentials. This sounds more like rule by and for a family or a small group of elites.
        magduf 7y ago
        >Who's been in charge for 16 years, and who just happens to be a military general According to this logic, the United States was a military dictatorship for a good portion of its history. Presidents Washington, Jackson, W. Harrison, Taylor, Pierce, A. Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, B. Harrison, and Eisenhower were all generals. Your claim is absurd.
      - nl 7y ago
        That's the opposite of a military dictatorship. A military dictatorship installs the dictator and the dictator relies on the support the generals to stay in power. That isn't the case in Singapore (nor many other dictatorships, where the dictator controls the military). You can tell by if the dictator has generals replaced, or vice-versa.
    - wolco 7y ago
      It's a unitary state.
      - Barrin92 7y ago
        so is France, Spain and the United Kingdom. A military dictatorship is a form of government in which the civil authority is subject to the military authority. This is not true in Singapore, the military answers to the elected government, just like in most other modern states.
    - tdsamardzhiev 7y ago
      I'll counter your wikipedia link with one of my own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regimes Not seeking to discredit the ruling party. What they've done with Singapore is nothing short of a miracle. But the fact is that they're still backed up by a ridiculously strong army, and the opposition party exists just so they can say there is one (but is frequently bullied regardless).
      - onetimemanytime 7y ago
        Singapore is way to small and easy to run an experiment, for whatever time it lasts. A shakeup in world order and they lose their status
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - yorwba 7y ago
        Singapore is classified as changing from civilian dictatorship to military dictatorship in 2004 in the source data [0] for that article because the newly elected Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was a brigadier general until 1984. So it's for purely formal reasons, not because there was a military takeover. Note that by this measure, there can be "military democracies", such as the U.S. during 55 years (in 1946-2008) where the president was ex-military (e.g. Bush). [0] https://sites.google.com/site/joseantoniocheibub/datasets/democracy-and-dictatorship-revisited https://sites.google.com/site/joseantoniocheibub/datasets/de...
        ValentineC 7y ago
        > Singapore is classified as changing from civilian dictatorship to military dictatorship in 2004 in the source data for that article because the newly elected Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was a brigadier general until 1984. So it's for purely formal reasons, not because there was a military takeover. The Singapore government has been trying to move away from this — a significant part by requesting that the press address them as "Mr", instead of their military ranks. There was a time when Lee Hsien Loong was addressed as `BG (NS) Lee Hsien Loong` everywhere [1]. One of the potential heirs to the Prime Ministership is the ex-Chief of Army, Chan Chun Sing [2]. It's very rare to see either the media, or the government themselves, to address him as `MG (NS) Chan Chun Sing` in their publications. [1] Example from a government website: https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/record-details/77e6b874-115d-11e3-83d5-0050568939ad https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/record-detail... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Chun_Sing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Chun_Sing

powerapple 7y ago

did he go to court and a judge said the evidence were incorrect?

tdsamardzhiev 7y ago
one does not simply sue a military dictatorship
- creddit 7y ago
  I'm not sure Singapore's government falls under a military dictatorship by any means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Singapore
  - kbcool 7y ago
    When the dictatorship controls the military you can pretty safely say they're a military dictatorship.
    - 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
      No, it's a military dictatorship when the military controls the country, which is fairly obviously not the case in Singapore.
      - tdsamardzhiev 7y ago
        Not needing to exercise one's power =/= not being in control of things.
        9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
        In Singapore, it's the prime minister who calls the shots. Period.
        tdsamardzhiev 7y ago
        Who's been in charge for 16 years, and who just happens to be a military general and the eldest son of the previous prime minister. But hey, I said what had to be said, and see no point arguing about the formalities. I'll let HN users decide for themselves.
        squiggleblaz 7y ago
        > Who's been in charge for 16 years, and who just happens to be a military general and the eldest son of the previous prime minister. That actually weakens the claim that it's a military dictatorship. If the army is controlled by civilians, its not a military dictatorship. If a person becomes leader of the military due to civilian connections, then it's not a military dictatorship. A military dictatorship is when a person becomes civilian leader by virtue of their military leadership. If the son of the civilian prime minister first gets to take over the army, it doesn't change the fact that he's fundamentally a civilian and the civilians are controlling - inside and out - the military. It reinforces it. He led the army and the country because of his civilian credentials. This sounds more like rule by and for a family or a small group of elites.
        magduf 7y ago
        >Who's been in charge for 16 years, and who just happens to be a military general According to this logic, the United States was a military dictatorship for a good portion of its history. Presidents Washington, Jackson, W. Harrison, Taylor, Pierce, A. Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, B. Harrison, and Eisenhower were all generals. Your claim is absurd.
    - nl 7y ago
      That's the opposite of a military dictatorship. A military dictatorship installs the dictator and the dictator relies on the support the generals to stay in power. That isn't the case in Singapore (nor many other dictatorships, where the dictator controls the military). You can tell by if the dictator has generals replaced, or vice-versa.
  - wolco 7y ago
    It's a unitary state.
    - Barrin92 7y ago
      so is France, Spain and the United Kingdom. A military dictatorship is a form of government in which the civil authority is subject to the military authority. This is not true in Singapore, the military answers to the elected government, just like in most other modern states.
  - tdsamardzhiev 7y ago
    I'll counter your wikipedia link with one of my own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regimes Not seeking to discredit the ruling party. What they've done with Singapore is nothing short of a miracle. But the fact is that they're still backed up by a ridiculously strong army, and the opposition party exists just so they can say there is one (but is frequently bullied regardless).
    - onetimemanytime 7y ago
      Singapore is way to small and easy to run an experiment, for whatever time it lasts. A shakeup in world order and they lose their status
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - yorwba 7y ago
      Singapore is classified as changing from civilian dictatorship to military dictatorship in 2004 in the source data [0] for that article because the newly elected Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was a brigadier general until 1984. So it's for purely formal reasons, not because there was a military takeover. Note that by this measure, there can be "military democracies", such as the U.S. during 55 years (in 1946-2008) where the president was ex-military (e.g. Bush). [0] https://sites.google.com/site/joseantoniocheibub/datasets/democracy-and-dictatorship-revisited https://sites.google.com/site/joseantoniocheibub/datasets/de...
      - ValentineC 7y ago
        > Singapore is classified as changing from civilian dictatorship to military dictatorship in 2004 in the source data for that article because the newly elected Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was a brigadier general until 1984. So it's for purely formal reasons, not because there was a military takeover. The Singapore government has been trying to move away from this — a significant part by requesting that the press address them as "Mr", instead of their military ranks. There was a time when Lee Hsien Loong was addressed as `BG (NS) Lee Hsien Loong` everywhere [1]. One of the potential heirs to the Prime Ministership is the ex-Chief of Army, Chan Chun Sing [2]. It's very rare to see either the media, or the government themselves, to address him as `MG (NS) Chan Chun Sing` in their publications. [1] Example from a government website: https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/record-details/77e6b874-115d-11e3-83d5-0050568939ad https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/record-detail... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Chun_Sing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Chun_Sing