10 ms·

The Social Laboratory: Singapore's Surveillance State

Fjejfjsicjshr 12y ago
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.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  You could have said this at almost any time in history. Does your "theory" make any useful predictions?
- towski 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    >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 This information is out of date.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.
- digitalengineer 12y ago
  >""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 http://www.corpun.com/awfay9405.htm
femto 12y ago
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?
mingmecca 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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.
  - dbcooper 12y ago
    It's beautiful if you're a fan of a city-wide shopping mall aesthetic...
    - frenchieinsg 12y ago
      Often said by tourists. Singapore is a lot less online that similarly developed Western nations (in part because professional PR staff game all the ratings and reviews), so it's harder to source the nice places. But it has a thriving "hipster" (for lack of a better word) scene and if you're willing to dig a bit, you can have as much fun as in London or Sydney, without ever stepping into a mall. My advice would be to ask local friends for recommendations. I also think that MacRitchie Reservoir Park is a lot more fun to walk around (with its giant lizards, multicolored parrots, flying squirrels, hordes of monkeys and general lack of crowds) than Hyde Park or Central Park.
    - venus 12y ago
      Ah, that's not totally fair. There's places to go that aren't shopping malls - I miss the hawker centres and food streets, and there's some great walking to be had. That said, the single best thing about Singapore is that it's a gateway to the rest of SEA. Changi is the best airport in the world, IMO, and you can be in Thailand or Vietnam in an hour for $100. No malls there! (Well not by CapitaMalls, anyway)
sytelus 12y ago
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.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  I've been here for a year - it's pretty damn nice country as long as you follow the rules.
- psykotic 12y ago
  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.
  - frenchieinsg 12y ago
    I'd love to hear some examples, particularly recent. I was personally impressed by how light handed the country was with its enemies; for example, communist agitators and Chinese agents were merely exiled from the country (and in some cases later allowed back in), rather than jailed or executed as is more common in the region and in other "right wing" flavored governments.
    - toni 12y ago
      I think you should regularly read "Singapore Dissident"[1] a blog written by a Singaporean lawyer who is at the moment a political refugee in US. [1] http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/ http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
      - frenchieinsg 12y ago
        Wording like that is not encouraging: "[Why would Singaporeans] rather live as Labrador Retrievers and not human beings? Why do they accept a life where they have to live no better than slaves, where they have no rights and completely at the mercy of a dictator?" True political discourse - and convincing arguments - sound more like this: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/antifed/main.htm http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/antifed/main.htm The thing is, I've read two pages of the stuff, and it's mostly name calling with a few names from history thrown in. Where is the reliable, third party evidence of so called human rights infringements? Plenty has been written on Abu Ghraib, for example, or Assad's use of chemical weapons. That's what I want to see - independent, solid evidence of human rights infringements and unfairness of courts. I've been pointed to plenty of independent blogs but never saw evidence of the widespread human rights abuses that Singapore is apparently committing. At worst, people dig up incidents from the creation of the country decades ago - where, should I remind you, LKY was actively fighting Maoist Chinese attempts at taking over the country by agents corrupting the political process! I've lived and worked in countries where citizen truly are "labradors" with "no rights" and "at the mercy of a dictator". They looked nothing like Singapore. On the other hand, I've lived in countries where parties like the "Workers Party" have strongly influenced politics, and a few decades later, you get ghettos, no law zones, a crumbling economy, high unemployment and so on. In the case of emerging markets, they result in countries with zero or negative growth rates, GDP per capita a fiftieth of Singapore's, and widespread monopolies somehow connected to the government. I just don't see it here. More evidence? (I'm going to be slow on this thread since it appears HN is now rate limiting me. It's a pleasure to have a conversation, nevertheless - thanks for participating.)
digitalengineer 12y ago
> 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 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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.
  - frenchieinsg 12y ago
    Or fear of missing out on a table at Kopitiam, booking 6 seats for your 2 friends with a couple tissue packets at rush hour whilst you spend half an hour choosing what stall to get lunch from. One of these days I'll muster the courage to sweep one of these aside...
ghshephard 12y ago
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 12y ago
  >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 12y ago
    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.
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    Perhaps they play it a lot more often at One-North. I'll see how often it's on this week. I was pretty sure it was non-stop.
- denzil_correa 12y ago
  FTR - The explosion showed on the screens is from the Mumbai 2006 blasts.
ghshephard 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hac...
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      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 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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.
rodgerd 12y ago
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.
- venus 12y ago
  > 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.
- MattHeard 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    > 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.
nubela 12y ago
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 12y ago
  Disgusting as in disgustingly incorrect, or as in describing disgusting truths?
kryptiskt 12y ago
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 12y ago
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.
norswap 12y ago
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.

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.

Houshalter 12y ago
You could have said this at almost any time in history. Does your "theory" make any useful predictions?
towski 12y ago
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 12y ago
  >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.
digitalengineer 12y ago
>""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 http://www.corpun.com/awfay9405.htm

femto 12y ago

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?

mingmecca 12y ago

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 12y ago
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.
- dbcooper 12y ago
  It's beautiful if you're a fan of a city-wide shopping mall aesthetic...
  - frenchieinsg 12y ago
    Often said by tourists. Singapore is a lot less online that similarly developed Western nations (in part because professional PR staff game all the ratings and reviews), so it's harder to source the nice places. But it has a thriving "hipster" (for lack of a better word) scene and if you're willing to dig a bit, you can have as much fun as in London or Sydney, without ever stepping into a mall. My advice would be to ask local friends for recommendations. I also think that MacRitchie Reservoir Park is a lot more fun to walk around (with its giant lizards, multicolored parrots, flying squirrels, hordes of monkeys and general lack of crowds) than Hyde Park or Central Park.
  - venus 12y ago
    Ah, that's not totally fair. There's places to go that aren't shopping malls - I miss the hawker centres and food streets, and there's some great walking to be had. That said, the single best thing about Singapore is that it's a gateway to the rest of SEA. Changi is the best airport in the world, IMO, and you can be in Thailand or Vietnam in an hour for $100. No malls there! (Well not by CapitaMalls, anyway)

sytelus 12y ago

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.

ghshephard 12y ago
I've been here for a year - it's pretty damn nice country as long as you follow the rules.
psykotic 12y ago
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.
- frenchieinsg 12y ago
  I'd love to hear some examples, particularly recent. I was personally impressed by how light handed the country was with its enemies; for example, communist agitators and Chinese agents were merely exiled from the country (and in some cases later allowed back in), rather than jailed or executed as is more common in the region and in other "right wing" flavored governments.
  - toni 12y ago
    I think you should regularly read "Singapore Dissident"[1] a blog written by a Singaporean lawyer who is at the moment a political refugee in US. [1] http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/ http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
    - frenchieinsg 12y ago
      Wording like that is not encouraging: "[Why would Singaporeans] rather live as Labrador Retrievers and not human beings? Why do they accept a life where they have to live no better than slaves, where they have no rights and completely at the mercy of a dictator?" True political discourse - and convincing arguments - sound more like this: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/antifed/main.htm http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/antifed/main.htm The thing is, I've read two pages of the stuff, and it's mostly name calling with a few names from history thrown in. Where is the reliable, third party evidence of so called human rights infringements? Plenty has been written on Abu Ghraib, for example, or Assad's use of chemical weapons. That's what I want to see - independent, solid evidence of human rights infringements and unfairness of courts. I've been pointed to plenty of independent blogs but never saw evidence of the widespread human rights abuses that Singapore is apparently committing. At worst, people dig up incidents from the creation of the country decades ago - where, should I remind you, LKY was actively fighting Maoist Chinese attempts at taking over the country by agents corrupting the political process! I've lived and worked in countries where citizen truly are "labradors" with "no rights" and "at the mercy of a dictator". They looked nothing like Singapore. On the other hand, I've lived in countries where parties like the "Workers Party" have strongly influenced politics, and a few decades later, you get ghettos, no law zones, a crumbling economy, high unemployment and so on. In the case of emerging markets, they result in countries with zero or negative growth rates, GDP per capita a fiftieth of Singapore's, and widespread monopolies somehow connected to the government. I just don't see it here. More evidence? (I'm going to be slow on this thread since it appears HN is now rate limiting me. It's a pleasure to have a conversation, nevertheless - thanks for participating.)

digitalengineer 12y ago

> 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 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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.
- frenchieinsg 12y ago
  Or fear of missing out on a table at Kopitiam, booking 6 seats for your 2 friends with a couple tissue packets at rush hour whilst you spend half an hour choosing what stall to get lunch from. One of these days I'll muster the courage to sweep one of these aside...

ghshephard 12y ago

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 12y ago
>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 12y ago
  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.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  Perhaps they play it a lot more often at One-North. I'll see how often it's on this week. I was pretty sure it was non-stop.
denzil_correa 12y ago
FTR - The explosion showed on the screens is from the Mumbai 2006 blasts.

ghshephard 12y ago

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 12y ago
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-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hac...
- ghshephard 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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 12y ago

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 12y ago
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.

rodgerd 12y ago

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.

venus 12y ago
> 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.
MattHeard 12y ago
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 12y ago
  > 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.

nubela 12y ago

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 12y ago
Disgusting as in disgustingly incorrect, or as in describing disgusting truths?

kryptiskt 12y ago

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 12y ago

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.

norswap 12y ago

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.