9 ms·

Please remember that Signapore has no free speech. I am kind of angry we're cirlclejerking about a PM whose a criminal according to my view http://en.wikipedia

Please remember that Signapore has no free speech. I am kind of angry we're cirlclejerking about a PM whose a criminal according to my view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Singapore Can we please just ignore this dictator and be amazed about code of other people instead? It just feels wrong.... I think freedom of speech is a very very important part of the hacker community. I think no sane person would want this person in charge of his country. Coder or not.

mikedmiked 11y ago
Controls on speech were necessary for Singapore to move from a third world country to a first world one in just 30 years
- muglug 11y ago
  Interesting theory. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support that assertion?
  - emodendroket 11y ago
    "The people responsible for suppressing speech said so."
    - rsanders 11y ago
      And nobody dissented!
  - tootie 11y ago
    It worked for South Korea and Taiwan. They were both ruled by strongmen on the fence between dictatorship and autoritarian democracy. Park Chung-hee industrialized S Korea in 20 years by ruling with a rubber-stamp parliament and a disregard for human rights. The country emerged stronger and gave way to a true democracy with 20 years of his death.
    - emodendroket 11y ago
      The trouble is that that doesn't prove that similar increases in prosperity could not have occurred without widespread human rights abuses.
      - xbmcuser 11y ago
        USA is built on human Rights abuses first of native Americans then African Americans today you might talk about how free speech got USa where it is. But that is not true is it if you look at your history same is for most of the western world. Today US consumerism is built on human rights abuses of people in other countries but free speech whatever. Forget people of other countries many of your local goverments and corporations are being run on human rights abuses of people of color and Hispanics. Either by incarceration or being used almost like slave labor in your large farms.
- badpenny 11y ago
  Why?
  - ethbro 11y ago
    Hopefully OP will elaborate on his thinking, but I'd hazard the thoughts were something along the lines of "sectarian violence in Iraq needs to be controlled to let it become a modern country." I.e. democracy is a fairly terrible vehicle for progressive change, as by definition you're going to be fighting against inherent conservativism (both terms used with social rather than political definitions) in a majority of your population. I know nothing on the history of Singapore, but /hazardGuess. (Whether or not you agree with that perspective is a valid question, ofc)
    - coldtea 11y ago
      The problem with Iraq wasn't "democracy" but colonialism (which created a faux country out of nowhere with problematic arbitrary and non-historical borders) and invasion.
      - ethbro 11y ago
        Iraq has a lot of problems. Historical and modern. And you never really commented on the original point: (given Iraq's, or any other similar state's, current state and status) is democracy and free speech the quickest path towards a more modern state?
        coldtea 11y ago
        I don't think the citizens of a state are pawns or little children, so that we can ask "what restrictions on them would be the quickest path towards a more modern state". That's the "You can't handle the truth" approach, which I abhor. Now, if (for the purposes of discussion) say that we value having a "modern state" (which is vague in itself) over freedom, democracy, free expression, etc, then, OK, what you write might be a quicker path to it. And Iraq, Libya, etc was indeed more stable under their previous regimes than they are now (of course for those, foreign interests have a lot to gain if they are unstable, and will "help" them be unstable by playing all sides against each other). It also raises the question what kind of "modern state" would that be, that was created with restrictions in democracy and free speech? Historically people have shown (expressed but also proved with their actions) that they can value freedom (as they see it) over convenience and even over their lives (from Spartacus to numerous examples to many to mention). If for a state the kind of people want to be established there needs to be tension and people fighting over the outcome they want, then so be it (even if the final positive outcome is not guaranteed). Just like France had to have the bloody revolution to become a modern state, the US had to have a revolution and a civil war, etc.
- edc117 11y ago
  Explain please? I don't know much of the history of that area.
  - crdb 11y ago
    Two reasons are generally put forward. The argument put forward by Lee Kuan Yew (RIP) for exiling communists was that Maoist China was aggressively attempting to expand into the region. For example, see the Hong Kong bombing campaign of 1967 [1]. According to, amongst others, "The Singapore Story" [2], he was initially contacted by the Communists to represent them as a "moderate" leftist. His manoeuvering to win the 1959 election (scaring many businesses away to KL, thinking communism had won) and kick them out relatively bloodlessly thereafter has become legendary in Singapore, and is I think unparalleled anywhere else in the world. Part of winning included controlling the press and winning the PR battle. Whether it was justified depends on your stance on communism (and therefore if you consider the country to have been at war, suspending individual rights). The second is that the island is racially very diverse, with a majority Chinese when both neighbours - who were also aggressive at the time - were of a different race and religion. Independence came a couple years too early due to Malaysian worries that LKY was not cooperating with their policies (Singapore was openly advocating racial equality amongst other things, against the pro-Malay discriminative policies from KL). Still in the 1960s, there was an explosion of anti-Chinese minority riots in neighbouring countries which involved some lynchings, and some Chinese had the idea of doing the same to Malays in Singapore (e.g. [3]). LKY's response was prompt: he pushed for the Chinese rioters to be made an example of. Restrictions on hate speech grew from a need to quell these tensions. There were no more race riots until the recent incident where a drunk construction worker was run over by a bus and the mob got angry. It's important to view his actions not as if you lived in the prosperous United States, surrounded by a large ocean and coming out victorious from the largest war known to mankind but as the leader of a tiny island surrounded by enemies big and small, open and insidious. I ask his critics what they would have done differently; I personally agree with those who consider LKY one of the greatest politicians that ever lived, and I admire the Singaporeans for electing him year after year. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_1967_Leftist_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_1967_Leftist_riots: "Bomb disposal experts from the police and the British military defused as many as 8,000 home-made bombs. Statistics showed that one in every eight bombs was genuine." [2] http://www.amazon.com/The-Singapore-Story-Memoirs-Kuan/dp/0130208035 http://www.amazon.com/The-Singapore-Story-Memoirs-Kuan/dp/01... - a worthy read if you love history, but if you are short on time, read "From Third World to First" instead. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_race_riots_in_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_race_riots_in_Singapore
- rmxt 11y ago
  I don't think that this comment was meant to signal approval of the strict/oppressive speech and press rights in Singapore, but it unfortunately reads as such. If I am misinterpreting your comment, how do you reconcile the apparent "if and only if" relationship you're positing, with countries like South Africa, Czech Republic, Slovakia, etc., that while not strictly third world, have seen increasing economic successes come in conjunction with increasingly free policies over the past 30 years? Superficially, Singapore appears to be the exception and not the rule: Myanmar, Indonesia, Philippines all have seen greater growth as liberalization progresses, as well.
- irixusr 11y ago
  It's an old argument. A statist (a polite word for fascist) regime can quickly correct obvious inefficiencies leading to a quick and easy boost in productivity. Hayek argues that the jolt is temporary and, in so far that nothing creative seems to come out from Singapore, he seems be at least partially correct. The question is, however, if this is a regime we'd like to live in. A regime where dissent is closely regulated and suppressed (including through canning). A friend's father, formerly an editor of the WSJ, is banned from Singapore for writing an article critical of the boss. I don't think it's a coincidence that Silicon Valley is in CA and has attracted millions throughout the world, to program. People take risks and failure is a badge of honor - not a stain on your family's honor. Meanwhile Singapore has someone who was, according to his ex-adviser, a great mathematician/programer. But then he joined the consultant/political class.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
naithemilkman 11y ago
Dictator? I don't think you know what that word means. Maybe you should come visit and see exactly how off the mark your comments are.
- toni 11y ago
  Singapore is a single-party state with almost no regards to human rights. Political dissidents are routinely either jailed and tortured or fined and driven out of the country.
  - emodendroket 11y ago
    Also one of the few countries in the world to use corporal punishment, such as canings, in response to crimes.
  - tim333 11y ago
    >routinely either jailed and tortured... I'm not sure there is record of anyone being tortured, let alone it being routine? One of my Singapore female friends pointed out you have a far lower chance of being raped or mugged if you walk around in Singapore than in most other countries and she considered that a more important than the ability to insult the government without them trying to sue you.
    - rmxt 11y ago
      GP is likely referring to the on-going, completely sanctioned and culturally ingrained practice of corporal punishment for what would otherwise be minor offenses in the Western world. While likely not thought of "torture" in the minds of Singaporeans, the thought of corporal punishment is abhorrent to many of the 20-30 somethings in Western urban environments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_Act_(Singapore) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_Act_(Singapore)
      - emodendroket 11y ago
rplnt 11y ago
I notice this kind of behavior a lot. People praising someone for silly little things (even when the person does not deserve to be praised in general). One that comes to mind that gets this kind of response a lot would be the current pope.
- tim333 11y ago
  I have to say as an atheist the current pope seems a huge improvement on the previous models.
fusiongyro 11y ago
Yes, let's ignore the programming aspect of this story so we can focus on the political aspect instead. That's what HN is for.
- sneak 11y ago
  This is code written by a criminal. That is relevant. Context matters. It has nothing to do with politics.
- yodsanklai 11y ago
  The programming aspect of this story is barely relevant here. A basic sudoku solver by itself isn't HN material. The reason why this story is interesting is because it involves a high ranking politician.
- ta86868 11y ago
  It seems like a nerd version of Putin riding a bear or whatever. "Look, I'm one of the people."
josai 11y ago
I am sick of seeing "free speech" treated almost as religious dogma, as if it is axiomatically good. It's not - it's just a theory that unrestricted free speech will lead to a better society. Frankly, I don't think that is anywhere near proven yet (nor do I think even democracy has been "proven" to work long-term). I actually like that there's lots of little experiments going on, trying any number of positions on all the little dials of society. Time will tell which ones work.
- rburhum 11y ago
  I've heard this so many times from people that live in a place where one of this "little experiments" is not happening. It is easy to be an anarchist or communist when you dont have to live in such a place.
  - speeder 11y ago
    Except people in Singapore stated they like it there. And I considered moving to Singapore a couple times, if I get ever invited for a job there, I would promptly accept. I don't agree with lots of their laws, but I must recognize that it works. (Singapore is clean, safe, has good business freedom, the government does not tolerate racism and religious hate, and the city has a very interesting functional design).
    - toni 11y ago
      > Except people in Singapore stated they like it there. In a country where you are not allowed to openly criticize the ruling power, how can you even measure what people of Singapore really like?
      - speeder 11y ago
        Even in countries with heavy censorship, you can tell if large groups are unhappy, they might state they are happy with their mouths, but body language, and general behaviour will show otherwise. Also, problematic countries also frequently have some dissenters, and people that managed to flee and speak against it while outside it. Singapore don't forbid you to leave, and all people I ever talked that went to Singapore, or lived in Singapore but where outside Singapore, mostly only had praise for the country.
jfoster 11y ago
Singapore is a different deal than most countries in the world. Perhaps free speech and civil liberties are not as strong there, but that trade-off gains them freedom from other things. Singaporeans are largely free from lots of types of crime that effectively plague many other first-world countries. I think it would be nice if there were more countries that presented different types of trade-offs, and then some mechanism for people to decide what type of country they want to live in.
- arianvanp 11y ago
  Yes I think it's interesting to realize democracy isn't the golden bullet (it isn't) but I think freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are two very important rights that should be protected in your constitution even if you're not 'democratic'. The problem is that the people have no way to overthrow or even audit their government. That's all nice and roses if the government is acting in good faith of its citizens (which people here claim is happening in singapore). But what if the next person is just totally insane? And abuses all his powers? You have no way to protect yourself from an abusive government. Which is very concerning. Maybe I'm too extreme in this? I don't know. But at least I can decide right?
  - jfoster 11y ago
    I'm not sure that Singapore is any more at risk of an abusive government than other countries. Freedom of speech and assembly might let you protest against an abusive government, but if the government isn't interested in obeying laws, those freedoms can just be ignored. It's not as though governments always obey their own laws.
squeaky-clean 11y ago
It's funny, I have next to no knowledge on the current state of Singapore or it's politics. I have no idea what this man's political views are, or how well he has been leading. But seeing this code (and little bit of personality left in comments like the grandparent post) does make me like the PM more, as a person and a leader. It's not really rational, but it's the truth. I guess I finally understand the whole "I want a president I could play sports / grab a beer / whatever with" sentiment.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  >I guess I finally understand the whole "I want a president I could play sports / grab a beer / whatever with" sentiment. This always seemed like an excuse by a defeated people. They know their person in charge is a nightmare and limits their ability to be free actors, so they just rationalize it away in a Stockholm Syndrom-like way. "Hey he's a good guy, you'd like him if you met him." I see this a lot with Russians who know full well Putin is dictator for life and they essentially have no rights or recourse against his administration, but play up a positive bullshit spin like "standing up to NATO/Nazi killers in Ukraine" or "bringing us back our Soviet glory." Its pathetic and on some level even the die-hards know it.
crocowhile 11y ago
No country in the world has real free speech, whereby free speech means you can say whatever you want without going to jail (or to guantanamo).
dropit_sphere 11y ago
You wouldn't want to be accused of censoring code, would you?
ilija139 11y ago
As a foreigner living for 2 years in Singapore and coming from an unstable country I can say that Singaporeans have more freedom than any other citizens in the world. Like Mr. Calvin Cheng says: "I tell you what freedom is. Freedom is being able to walk on the streets unmolested in the wee hours in the morning, to be able to leave one's door open and not fear that one would be burgled. Freedom is the woman who can ride buses and trains alone; freedom is not having to avoid certain subway stations after night falls. Freedom is knowing our children can go to school without fear of drugs, or being mowed down by some insane person with a gun. Freedom is knowing that we are not bound by our class, our race, our religion, and we can excel for the individuals that we are - the freedom to accomplish. Freedom is living in one of the least corrupt societies in the world, knowing that our ability to get things done is not going to be limited by our ability to pay someone. Freedom is fresh air and clean streets, because nothing is more inimical to our liberty of movement than being trapped at home because of suffocating smog. These are the freedoms that Singaporeans have, freedoms that were built on the vision and hard work of Mr Lee, our first Prime Minister. And we have all of these, these liberties, while also being one of the richest countries in the world." The whole article is great http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/commentary-singapores-success-and-the-myth-trade-offs-20 http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-st...
- enneff 11y ago
  > Freedom is knowing that we are not bound by our class, our race, our religion, Just as long as you're of Chinese ancestry, of course.
- duckingtest 11y ago
  This definition conflates freedom with security, while describing normal life in a big portion of a civilized world, where all these things are achieved with less limitation in other spheres of life. Especially regarding sex and drugs. Singapore isn't a free country. It's very efficient, rich and safe, yes.
wheregotla 11y ago
American living in Singapore. For me, it's all about economic stability and employment opportunities, the two things I found lacking in US. I graduated in late 2000s in US and it was a really hard time for me. It was especially disappointing later to find that no one was even prosecuted. "Well, at least our country has freedom of speech, brah!" Yeah, no. I'd rather live in a country that provides a good living for its citizens and doesn't squander its wealth war mongering around the world for the sake of protecting some vague notions of "freedoms".
- getsat 11y ago
  I feel this. I just bounced from the USA for east asia permanently and couldn't be happier. No guns, no crime, peaceful people, no fear of burglary/mugging/fraud, better food/diet, lower taxes. I am still trying to get used to leaving my helmet sitting in plain view on my scooter, unlocked, for hours at a time. My life now is the antithesis of my life in San Francisco (worst city I have ever lived in overall), and I couldn't be happier.

mikedmiked 11y ago

Controls on speech were necessary for Singapore to move from a third world country to a first world one in just 30 years

muglug 11y ago
Interesting theory. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support that assertion?
- emodendroket 11y ago
  "The people responsible for suppressing speech said so."
  - rsanders 11y ago
    And nobody dissented!
- tootie 11y ago
  It worked for South Korea and Taiwan. They were both ruled by strongmen on the fence between dictatorship and autoritarian democracy. Park Chung-hee industrialized S Korea in 20 years by ruling with a rubber-stamp parliament and a disregard for human rights. The country emerged stronger and gave way to a true democracy with 20 years of his death.
  - emodendroket 11y ago
    The trouble is that that doesn't prove that similar increases in prosperity could not have occurred without widespread human rights abuses.
    - xbmcuser 11y ago
      USA is built on human Rights abuses first of native Americans then African Americans today you might talk about how free speech got USa where it is. But that is not true is it if you look at your history same is for most of the western world. Today US consumerism is built on human rights abuses of people in other countries but free speech whatever. Forget people of other countries many of your local goverments and corporations are being run on human rights abuses of people of color and Hispanics. Either by incarceration or being used almost like slave labor in your large farms.
badpenny 11y ago
Why?
- ethbro 11y ago
  Hopefully OP will elaborate on his thinking, but I'd hazard the thoughts were something along the lines of "sectarian violence in Iraq needs to be controlled to let it become a modern country." I.e. democracy is a fairly terrible vehicle for progressive change, as by definition you're going to be fighting against inherent conservativism (both terms used with social rather than political definitions) in a majority of your population. I know nothing on the history of Singapore, but /hazardGuess. (Whether or not you agree with that perspective is a valid question, ofc)
  - coldtea 11y ago
    The problem with Iraq wasn't "democracy" but colonialism (which created a faux country out of nowhere with problematic arbitrary and non-historical borders) and invasion.
    - ethbro 11y ago
      Iraq has a lot of problems. Historical and modern. And you never really commented on the original point: (given Iraq's, or any other similar state's, current state and status) is democracy and free speech the quickest path towards a more modern state?
      - coldtea 11y ago
        I don't think the citizens of a state are pawns or little children, so that we can ask "what restrictions on them would be the quickest path towards a more modern state". That's the "You can't handle the truth" approach, which I abhor. Now, if (for the purposes of discussion) say that we value having a "modern state" (which is vague in itself) over freedom, democracy, free expression, etc, then, OK, what you write might be a quicker path to it. And Iraq, Libya, etc was indeed more stable under their previous regimes than they are now (of course for those, foreign interests have a lot to gain if they are unstable, and will "help" them be unstable by playing all sides against each other). It also raises the question what kind of "modern state" would that be, that was created with restrictions in democracy and free speech? Historically people have shown (expressed but also proved with their actions) that they can value freedom (as they see it) over convenience and even over their lives (from Spartacus to numerous examples to many to mention). If for a state the kind of people want to be established there needs to be tension and people fighting over the outcome they want, then so be it (even if the final positive outcome is not guaranteed). Just like France had to have the bloody revolution to become a modern state, the US had to have a revolution and a civil war, etc.
edc117 11y ago
Explain please? I don't know much of the history of that area.
- crdb 11y ago
  Two reasons are generally put forward. The argument put forward by Lee Kuan Yew (RIP) for exiling communists was that Maoist China was aggressively attempting to expand into the region. For example, see the Hong Kong bombing campaign of 1967 [1]. According to, amongst others, "The Singapore Story" [2], he was initially contacted by the Communists to represent them as a "moderate" leftist. His manoeuvering to win the 1959 election (scaring many businesses away to KL, thinking communism had won) and kick them out relatively bloodlessly thereafter has become legendary in Singapore, and is I think unparalleled anywhere else in the world. Part of winning included controlling the press and winning the PR battle. Whether it was justified depends on your stance on communism (and therefore if you consider the country to have been at war, suspending individual rights). The second is that the island is racially very diverse, with a majority Chinese when both neighbours - who were also aggressive at the time - were of a different race and religion. Independence came a couple years too early due to Malaysian worries that LKY was not cooperating with their policies (Singapore was openly advocating racial equality amongst other things, against the pro-Malay discriminative policies from KL). Still in the 1960s, there was an explosion of anti-Chinese minority riots in neighbouring countries which involved some lynchings, and some Chinese had the idea of doing the same to Malays in Singapore (e.g. [3]). LKY's response was prompt: he pushed for the Chinese rioters to be made an example of. Restrictions on hate speech grew from a need to quell these tensions. There were no more race riots until the recent incident where a drunk construction worker was run over by a bus and the mob got angry. It's important to view his actions not as if you lived in the prosperous United States, surrounded by a large ocean and coming out victorious from the largest war known to mankind but as the leader of a tiny island surrounded by enemies big and small, open and insidious. I ask his critics what they would have done differently; I personally agree with those who consider LKY one of the greatest politicians that ever lived, and I admire the Singaporeans for electing him year after year. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_1967_Leftist_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_1967_Leftist_riots: "Bomb disposal experts from the police and the British military defused as many as 8,000 home-made bombs. Statistics showed that one in every eight bombs was genuine." [2] http://www.amazon.com/The-Singapore-Story-Memoirs-Kuan/dp/0130208035 http://www.amazon.com/The-Singapore-Story-Memoirs-Kuan/dp/01... - a worthy read if you love history, but if you are short on time, read "From Third World to First" instead. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_race_riots_in_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_race_riots_in_Singapore
rmxt 11y ago
I don't think that this comment was meant to signal approval of the strict/oppressive speech and press rights in Singapore, but it unfortunately reads as such. If I am misinterpreting your comment, how do you reconcile the apparent "if and only if" relationship you're positing, with countries like South Africa, Czech Republic, Slovakia, etc., that while not strictly third world, have seen increasing economic successes come in conjunction with increasingly free policies over the past 30 years? Superficially, Singapore appears to be the exception and not the rule: Myanmar, Indonesia, Philippines all have seen greater growth as liberalization progresses, as well.
irixusr 11y ago
It's an old argument. A statist (a polite word for fascist) regime can quickly correct obvious inefficiencies leading to a quick and easy boost in productivity. Hayek argues that the jolt is temporary and, in so far that nothing creative seems to come out from Singapore, he seems be at least partially correct. The question is, however, if this is a regime we'd like to live in. A regime where dissent is closely regulated and suppressed (including through canning). A friend's father, formerly an editor of the WSJ, is banned from Singapore for writing an article critical of the boss. I don't think it's a coincidence that Silicon Valley is in CA and has attracted millions throughout the world, to program. People take risks and failure is a badge of honor - not a stain on your family's honor. Meanwhile Singapore has someone who was, according to his ex-adviser, a great mathematician/programer. But then he joined the consultant/political class.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

naithemilkman 11y ago

Dictator? I don't think you know what that word means. Maybe you should come visit and see exactly how off the mark your comments are.

toni 11y ago
Singapore is a single-party state with almost no regards to human rights. Political dissidents are routinely either jailed and tortured or fined and driven out of the country.
- emodendroket 11y ago
  Also one of the few countries in the world to use corporal punishment, such as canings, in response to crimes.
- tim333 11y ago
  >routinely either jailed and tortured... I'm not sure there is record of anyone being tortured, let alone it being routine? One of my Singapore female friends pointed out you have a far lower chance of being raped or mugged if you walk around in Singapore than in most other countries and she considered that a more important than the ability to insult the government without them trying to sue you.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    GP is likely referring to the on-going, completely sanctioned and culturally ingrained practice of corporal punishment for what would otherwise be minor offenses in the Western world. While likely not thought of "torture" in the minds of Singaporeans, the thought of corporal punishment is abhorrent to many of the 20-30 somethings in Western urban environments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_Act_(Singapore) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_Act_(Singapore)
    - emodendroket 11y ago

rplnt 11y ago

I notice this kind of behavior a lot. People praising someone for silly little things (even when the person does not deserve to be praised in general). One that comes to mind that gets this kind of response a lot would be the current pope.

tim333 11y ago
I have to say as an atheist the current pope seems a huge improvement on the previous models.

fusiongyro 11y ago

Yes, let's ignore the programming aspect of this story so we can focus on the political aspect instead. That's what HN is for.

sneak 11y ago
This is code written by a criminal. That is relevant. Context matters. It has nothing to do with politics.
yodsanklai 11y ago
The programming aspect of this story is barely relevant here. A basic sudoku solver by itself isn't HN material. The reason why this story is interesting is because it involves a high ranking politician.
ta86868 11y ago
It seems like a nerd version of Putin riding a bear or whatever. "Look, I'm one of the people."

josai 11y ago

I am sick of seeing "free speech" treated almost as religious dogma, as if it is axiomatically good. It's not - it's just a theory that unrestricted free speech will lead to a better society. Frankly, I don't think that is anywhere near proven yet (nor do I think even democracy has been "proven" to work long-term). I actually like that there's lots of little experiments going on, trying any number of positions on all the little dials of society. Time will tell which ones work.

rburhum 11y ago
I've heard this so many times from people that live in a place where one of this "little experiments" is not happening. It is easy to be an anarchist or communist when you dont have to live in such a place.
- speeder 11y ago
  Except people in Singapore stated they like it there. And I considered moving to Singapore a couple times, if I get ever invited for a job there, I would promptly accept. I don't agree with lots of their laws, but I must recognize that it works. (Singapore is clean, safe, has good business freedom, the government does not tolerate racism and religious hate, and the city has a very interesting functional design).
  - toni 11y ago
    > Except people in Singapore stated they like it there. In a country where you are not allowed to openly criticize the ruling power, how can you even measure what people of Singapore really like?
    - speeder 11y ago
      Even in countries with heavy censorship, you can tell if large groups are unhappy, they might state they are happy with their mouths, but body language, and general behaviour will show otherwise. Also, problematic countries also frequently have some dissenters, and people that managed to flee and speak against it while outside it. Singapore don't forbid you to leave, and all people I ever talked that went to Singapore, or lived in Singapore but where outside Singapore, mostly only had praise for the country.

jfoster 11y ago

Singapore is a different deal than most countries in the world. Perhaps free speech and civil liberties are not as strong there, but that trade-off gains them freedom from other things. Singaporeans are largely free from lots of types of crime that effectively plague many other first-world countries. I think it would be nice if there were more countries that presented different types of trade-offs, and then some mechanism for people to decide what type of country they want to live in.

arianvanp 11y ago
Yes I think it's interesting to realize democracy isn't the golden bullet (it isn't) but I think freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are two very important rights that should be protected in your constitution even if you're not 'democratic'. The problem is that the people have no way to overthrow or even audit their government. That's all nice and roses if the government is acting in good faith of its citizens (which people here claim is happening in singapore). But what if the next person is just totally insane? And abuses all his powers? You have no way to protect yourself from an abusive government. Which is very concerning. Maybe I'm too extreme in this? I don't know. But at least I can decide right?
- jfoster 11y ago
  I'm not sure that Singapore is any more at risk of an abusive government than other countries. Freedom of speech and assembly might let you protest against an abusive government, but if the government isn't interested in obeying laws, those freedoms can just be ignored. It's not as though governments always obey their own laws.

squeaky-clean 11y ago

It's funny, I have next to no knowledge on the current state of Singapore or it's politics. I have no idea what this man's political views are, or how well he has been leading. But seeing this code (and little bit of personality left in comments like the grandparent post) does make me like the PM more, as a person and a leader. It's not really rational, but it's the truth. I guess I finally understand the whole "I want a president I could play sports / grab a beer / whatever with" sentiment.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>I guess I finally understand the whole "I want a president I could play sports / grab a beer / whatever with" sentiment. This always seemed like an excuse by a defeated people. They know their person in charge is a nightmare and limits their ability to be free actors, so they just rationalize it away in a Stockholm Syndrom-like way. "Hey he's a good guy, you'd like him if you met him." I see this a lot with Russians who know full well Putin is dictator for life and they essentially have no rights or recourse against his administration, but play up a positive bullshit spin like "standing up to NATO/Nazi killers in Ukraine" or "bringing us back our Soviet glory." Its pathetic and on some level even the die-hards know it.

crocowhile 11y ago

No country in the world has real free speech, whereby free speech means you can say whatever you want without going to jail (or to guantanamo).

dropit_sphere 11y ago

You wouldn't want to be accused of censoring code, would you?

ilija139 11y ago

As a foreigner living for 2 years in Singapore and coming from an unstable country I can say that Singaporeans have more freedom than any other citizens in the world. Like Mr. Calvin Cheng says: "I tell you what freedom is. Freedom is being able to walk on the streets unmolested in the wee hours in the morning, to be able to leave one's door open and not fear that one would be burgled. Freedom is the woman who can ride buses and trains alone; freedom is not having to avoid certain subway stations after night falls. Freedom is knowing our children can go to school without fear of drugs, or being mowed down by some insane person with a gun. Freedom is knowing that we are not bound by our class, our race, our religion, and we can excel for the individuals that we are - the freedom to accomplish. Freedom is living in one of the least corrupt societies in the world, knowing that our ability to get things done is not going to be limited by our ability to pay someone. Freedom is fresh air and clean streets, because nothing is more inimical to our liberty of movement than being trapped at home because of suffocating smog. These are the freedoms that Singaporeans have, freedoms that were built on the vision and hard work of Mr Lee, our first Prime Minister. And we have all of these, these liberties, while also being one of the richest countries in the world." The whole article is great http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/commentary-singapores-success-and-the-myth-trade-offs-20 http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-st...

enneff 11y ago
> Freedom is knowing that we are not bound by our class, our race, our religion, Just as long as you're of Chinese ancestry, of course.
duckingtest 11y ago
This definition conflates freedom with security, while describing normal life in a big portion of a civilized world, where all these things are achieved with less limitation in other spheres of life. Especially regarding sex and drugs. Singapore isn't a free country. It's very efficient, rich and safe, yes.

wheregotla 11y ago

American living in Singapore. For me, it's all about economic stability and employment opportunities, the two things I found lacking in US. I graduated in late 2000s in US and it was a really hard time for me. It was especially disappointing later to find that no one was even prosecuted. "Well, at least our country has freedom of speech, brah!" Yeah, no. I'd rather live in a country that provides a good living for its citizens and doesn't squander its wealth war mongering around the world for the sake of protecting some vague notions of "freedoms".

getsat 11y ago
I feel this. I just bounced from the USA for east asia permanently and couldn't be happier. No guns, no crime, peaceful people, no fear of burglary/mugging/fraud, better food/diet, lower taxes. I am still trying to get used to leaving my helmet sitting in plain view on my scooter, unlocked, for hours at a time. My life now is the antithesis of my life in San Francisco (worst city I have ever lived in overall), and I couldn't be happier.