5 ms·

Westerners who've never lived there and wouldn't be in any danger of suffering any of this "harsh" treatment love to complain about Singapore. Visit sometime w

Westerners who've never lived there and wouldn't be in any danger of suffering any of this "harsh" treatment love to complain about Singapore. Visit sometime with an open mind.

kristofferR 15y ago
It's hard to visit with an open mind when you would risk several years in prison for doing what you would at home. Capital punishment is required for being in the company with someone possessing a small amount of weed. "Obscene material" gives you prison up to three months, 21 years if you make it avaliable to someone under 21. If you watch the movie Milk with someone under 21 years old, you risk 21 years in prison. All members of Jehovas Witnesses were imprisioned in 2004. Richard Dawkins would probably have been sentenced for long imprisonment without a trial.
- helmut_hed 15y ago
  Richard Dawkins would probably have been sentenced for long imprisonment without a trial Can you elaborate?
  - kristofferR 15y ago
    The two most relevant acts are The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and The Sedition Act. Both allow for prison sentences for saying things that could be percieved as offensive. In 2006 a young blogger were detained for posting cartoons of Jesus.
- brisance 15y ago
  >>Capital punishment is required for being in the company with someone possessing a small amount of weed. Capital punishment is meted out to persons who possess or have reasonable knowledge of someone who possesses or deals in drugs. Do I agree with it? No. But it's very far from your claim. There is due process of law. >>All members of Jehovas Witnesses were imprisioned in 2004. The reason for this is because Singapore has a conscripted army. All male citizens are required to spend 2+ years of their lives in service of their country. They are liable to be called up for service any time up till they are 40, or 50 in the case of officers. Jehovah's Witnesses renounce bearing arms and thus their religion is in direct conflict with statute. They are not "imprisoned" in the sense of "rehabilitation" or "punishment". They are confined, so yes there are restrictions on their movement, and are given duties such as gardening, cooking etc. They are free men after they have performed the equivalent length of time as a regular citizen in the armed forces. Edit: typos
  - tommi 15y ago
    It's the somewhat the same in Finland and many other countries. Here you can choose between 6 months of service in the military, 12 months of alternative service or go to prison for 6 months. While there are many up sides in conscription I still feel it's against human rights.
  - kristofferR 15y ago
    If they're treated like other pacifists, then why are their bibles banned?
  - inkaudio 15y ago
    You are absolutely wrong, they are for a fact imprisoned. Read : http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108423.htm http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108423.htm Search for Jehovah witness. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovahs_Witnesses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovahs_Witness... search for Singapore.
    - brisance 15y ago
      And I've personally observed these Jehovah's Witnesses in the grounds of detention barracks. Let me ask you then: what would you do to apply the conscription law equally? There is no "escape clause" even for sons of state officials. All males have to go through it and the citizenry have come to see it as a rite of passage.
mikemaccana 15y ago
I worked for a startup for three years whose small sAPAC headquarters moved from Sydney to Singapore. I was young, enthusiastic and very well performing (I was measured in my job each week by customers). I found most of the Singaporean staff I met a) thought I was slightly crazy b) either loved me, or hated me for the same reason: I didn't slavishly adhere to rules, particularly when it came to giving customers what they wanted. If the entire (US founded) company had that idea the company wouldn't exist at all: particularly when you're a small company competing with giants, flexibility is required to win business. Singapore suffers from the India problem: they're technically talented, but the adherence to authority means they don't produce many innovative companies.
- shmulkey18 15y ago
  Here we come to the nub of the matter, at least for the average HN reader: a country which is characterised by slavish obedience to authority and a willingness to trade off autonomy and the right to do something that may offend others for "social order" is a country which is very unlikely to foster a robust start-up culture. Start-ups rely on the willingness of founders and investors to be bold, break the rules, and act without concern for what others may think. This, in turn, requires a society which embraces disorder, spontaneity and a certain degree of rebelliousness. It's not an accident that the two countries with the most robust start-up scenes are the US and Israel, both characterised by messy and sometimes annoying individualism, robust debate, and intellectual ferment. It's hard to be believe that a nation like Singapore, whose citizens happily trade off freedom of speech for trivialities like clean streets and the "freedom" of people not to be offended will be capable of producing the kind of rough-and-tumble Darwinian business environment and culture in which start-ups flourish. An aside: my read of the Indian national character is that is much closer to that of the Americans than that of the Singaporese: individualistic, pluralistic, and tolerant of disorder and creativity. These is, of course, much to still be achieved in India, but I think the vector is pointed in the right direction.
technomancy 15y ago
I grew up in .sg, and it really challenged my notion of democracy as a universal good. The benevolent dictatorship there seems to have things figured out pretty well, while most democracies in the region are flailing in comparison. (or should I say alleged democracies perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman, etc.) Of course, "benevolent dictatorship" is not a form of government; it's just a dictatorship that happens to be benevolent right now, but I have a feeling the honor/shame-based values of a Confucian society may have an advantage as far as their ability to produce benevolent rulers.
- hboon 15y ago
  Are you still here or travel back regularly? Would love to meet up.
  - technomancy 15y ago
    I used to visit every so often, but my folks moved to Penang.

Westerners who've never lived there and wouldn't be in any danger of suffering any of this "harsh" treatment love to complain about Singapore. Visit sometime with an open mind.

kristofferR 15y ago

It's hard to visit with an open mind when you would risk several years in prison for doing what you would at home. Capital punishment is required for being in the company with someone possessing a small amount of weed. "Obscene material" gives you prison up to three months, 21 years if you make it avaliable to someone under 21. If you watch the movie Milk with someone under 21 years old, you risk 21 years in prison. All members of Jehovas Witnesses were imprisioned in 2004. Richard Dawkins would probably have been sentenced for long imprisonment without a trial.

helmut_hed 15y ago
Richard Dawkins would probably have been sentenced for long imprisonment without a trial Can you elaborate?
- kristofferR 15y ago
  The two most relevant acts are The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and The Sedition Act. Both allow for prison sentences for saying things that could be percieved as offensive. In 2006 a young blogger were detained for posting cartoons of Jesus.
brisance 15y ago
>>Capital punishment is required for being in the company with someone possessing a small amount of weed. Capital punishment is meted out to persons who possess or have reasonable knowledge of someone who possesses or deals in drugs. Do I agree with it? No. But it's very far from your claim. There is due process of law. >>All members of Jehovas Witnesses were imprisioned in 2004. The reason for this is because Singapore has a conscripted army. All male citizens are required to spend 2+ years of their lives in service of their country. They are liable to be called up for service any time up till they are 40, or 50 in the case of officers. Jehovah's Witnesses renounce bearing arms and thus their religion is in direct conflict with statute. They are not "imprisoned" in the sense of "rehabilitation" or "punishment". They are confined, so yes there are restrictions on their movement, and are given duties such as gardening, cooking etc. They are free men after they have performed the equivalent length of time as a regular citizen in the armed forces. Edit: typos
- tommi 15y ago
  It's the somewhat the same in Finland and many other countries. Here you can choose between 6 months of service in the military, 12 months of alternative service or go to prison for 6 months. While there are many up sides in conscription I still feel it's against human rights.
- kristofferR 15y ago
  If they're treated like other pacifists, then why are their bibles banned?
- inkaudio 15y ago
  You are absolutely wrong, they are for a fact imprisoned. Read : http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108423.htm http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108423.htm Search for Jehovah witness. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovahs_Witnesses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovahs_Witness... search for Singapore.
  - brisance 15y ago
    And I've personally observed these Jehovah's Witnesses in the grounds of detention barracks. Let me ask you then: what would you do to apply the conscription law equally? There is no "escape clause" even for sons of state officials. All males have to go through it and the citizenry have come to see it as a rite of passage.

mikemaccana 15y ago

I worked for a startup for three years whose small sAPAC headquarters moved from Sydney to Singapore. I was young, enthusiastic and very well performing (I was measured in my job each week by customers). I found most of the Singaporean staff I met a) thought I was slightly crazy b) either loved me, or hated me for the same reason: I didn't slavishly adhere to rules, particularly when it came to giving customers what they wanted. If the entire (US founded) company had that idea the company wouldn't exist at all: particularly when you're a small company competing with giants, flexibility is required to win business. Singapore suffers from the India problem: they're technically talented, but the adherence to authority means they don't produce many innovative companies.

shmulkey18 15y ago
Here we come to the nub of the matter, at least for the average HN reader: a country which is characterised by slavish obedience to authority and a willingness to trade off autonomy and the right to do something that may offend others for "social order" is a country which is very unlikely to foster a robust start-up culture. Start-ups rely on the willingness of founders and investors to be bold, break the rules, and act without concern for what others may think. This, in turn, requires a society which embraces disorder, spontaneity and a certain degree of rebelliousness. It's not an accident that the two countries with the most robust start-up scenes are the US and Israel, both characterised by messy and sometimes annoying individualism, robust debate, and intellectual ferment. It's hard to be believe that a nation like Singapore, whose citizens happily trade off freedom of speech for trivialities like clean streets and the "freedom" of people not to be offended will be capable of producing the kind of rough-and-tumble Darwinian business environment and culture in which start-ups flourish. An aside: my read of the Indian national character is that is much closer to that of the Americans than that of the Singaporese: individualistic, pluralistic, and tolerant of disorder and creativity. These is, of course, much to still be achieved in India, but I think the vector is pointed in the right direction.

technomancy 15y ago

I grew up in .sg, and it really challenged my notion of democracy as a universal good. The benevolent dictatorship there seems to have things figured out pretty well, while most democracies in the region are flailing in comparison. (or should I say alleged democracies perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman, etc.) Of course, "benevolent dictatorship" is not a form of government; it's just a dictatorship that happens to be benevolent right now, but I have a feeling the honor/shame-based values of a Confucian society may have an advantage as far as their ability to produce benevolent rulers.

hboon 15y ago
Are you still here or travel back regularly? Would love to meet up.
- technomancy 15y ago
  I used to visit every so often, but my folks moved to Penang.