Singapore’s tech-utopia and surveillance state(restofworld.org)
restofworld.org
Singapore’s tech-utopia and surveillance state
https://restofworld.org/2021/singapores-tech-utopia-dream-is-turning-into-a-surveillance-state-nightmare/
185 comments
A bit hyperbolic, but I think you're on the right track. Here's why, as unintentionally revealed by plain-spoken Charlie Munger:
> “In a democracy, everyone takes turns. But if you really want a lot of wisdom, it’s better to concentrate decisions and process in one person. It’s no accident that Singapore has a much better record, given where it started, than the United States. There, power was concentrated in an enormously talented person, Lee Kuan Yew, ...”
https://fs.blog/charlie-munger-wisdom/
In short, "what you don't want", according to the Munger social vision, is ... democracy. A benevolant dictator it seems, is the only way. But how many aspiring dictators in the long history of this world have proven out as benevolent? The track record of dictators selected by political struggle I would argue is, by any measure of mass welfare, even worse than that of hereditary monarchs.
> “In a democracy, everyone takes turns. But if you really want a lot of wisdom, it’s better to concentrate decisions and process in one person. It’s no accident that Singapore has a much better record, given where it started, than the United States. There, power was concentrated in an enormously talented person, Lee Kuan Yew, ...”
https://fs.blog/charlie-munger-wisdom/
In short, "what you don't want", according to the Munger social vision, is ... democracy. A benevolant dictator it seems, is the only way. But how many aspiring dictators in the long history of this world have proven out as benevolent? The track record of dictators selected by political struggle I would argue is, by any measure of mass welfare, even worse than that of hereditary monarchs.
I am a reasonably large Charlie Munger fan (read all the bios of him and Buffett, read the Bevelin books, read Poor Charlie's) but the guy has the most phenomenal blind spots of any person alive because, bluntly, he isn't that well-read. He has read very deeply in one area (if you look at his book recommendations, it is like the Amazon best sellers for rich elderly people who went to college in the US, studied sciences but never really thought about anything else) but he appears unaware of the limits of knowledge, and is exceptionally superficial about stuff like politics (the stuff with the UCLA dorm also highlights this, he has written a lot of sensible stuff, and a lot of stuff that would do well in standup).
Plato wrote about all of this stuff, he was of the same opinion (philosopher kings), and then spent most of life finding out why that didn't work (and was, as a result, sold into slavery towards the end of his life). This came up again in the Enlightenment. The perceived fault of democracy is the strength: it is strong because "everyone takes turns". You significantly reduce your upside, but you significantly reduce your downside too. The US has benefitted hugely from founders who not only understood democracy well, but understood the problems with dictatorship.
Also, it is worth saying that LKY's son now runs the country. It isn't a democracy, are we seriously saying that the country was scoured for the best people and it just turned out the best guy was the son of the last guy? Seriously? LKY's achievements were great, he was a great leader but there is a lot wrong with the country (it runs on slave labour) and has the highest level of political weakness possible (China is a perfect parallel: Deng was a great leader, but he didn't solve any of political issues and assumed the CCP would always lead by consensus, Xi has made himself permanent leader...this is why you have a balance of powers/strong constitution, this is exactly why).
Plato wrote about all of this stuff, he was of the same opinion (philosopher kings), and then spent most of life finding out why that didn't work (and was, as a result, sold into slavery towards the end of his life). This came up again in the Enlightenment. The perceived fault of democracy is the strength: it is strong because "everyone takes turns". You significantly reduce your upside, but you significantly reduce your downside too. The US has benefitted hugely from founders who not only understood democracy well, but understood the problems with dictatorship.
Also, it is worth saying that LKY's son now runs the country. It isn't a democracy, are we seriously saying that the country was scoured for the best people and it just turned out the best guy was the son of the last guy? Seriously? LKY's achievements were great, he was a great leader but there is a lot wrong with the country (it runs on slave labour) and has the highest level of political weakness possible (China is a perfect parallel: Deng was a great leader, but he didn't solve any of political issues and assumed the CCP would always lead by consensus, Xi has made himself permanent leader...this is why you have a balance of powers/strong constitution, this is exactly why).
> LKY's son now runs the country.
Thanks. Any pointers to sources that actually know something about the real power structure inside Singapore politics? From my scan of several English-language sites there, it seemed only one -- Straits Times -- acknowledged that the country had any internal politics at all:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/whats-needed...
So, Lee Hsien Loong is LKW's son?
Also this. Wondering if the Progress Singapore Party is a token opposition that's allowed to exist, provided it never threatens to achieve real power, in order to put a fig leaf on the democracy claim?
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/former-candi...
> a balance of powers/strong constitution
Necessary but not sufficient. Support for those values, and a few others e.g. respect for rule of law, willingness to pay taxes, toleration of dissenting opinions, consideration for future generations, is also required, from some significant fraction of the electorate. A certain "political culture". Decay of which I'd suggest is at the root of any democracy's troubles.
Thanks. Any pointers to sources that actually know something about the real power structure inside Singapore politics? From my scan of several English-language sites there, it seemed only one -- Straits Times -- acknowledged that the country had any internal politics at all:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/whats-needed...
So, Lee Hsien Loong is LKW's son?
Also this. Wondering if the Progress Singapore Party is a token opposition that's allowed to exist, provided it never threatens to achieve real power, in order to put a fig leaf on the democracy claim?
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/former-candi...
> a balance of powers/strong constitution
Necessary but not sufficient. Support for those values, and a few others e.g. respect for rule of law, willingness to pay taxes, toleration of dissenting opinions, consideration for future generations, is also required, from some significant fraction of the electorate. A certain "political culture". Decay of which I'd suggest is at the root of any democracy's troubles.
Singaporean here.
Opposition does exist in Singapore's politics, and in fact they do get quite a large share of votes (~40% across many constituencies), it's just that due to the first-past-the-post system the number of opposition MPs that make it into Parliament is extremely small, and thus the ruling party has effectively full control over Parliament.
Now this is definitely a clear flaw of the system but things are changing - younger people are more willing to run as opposition candidates and in the most recent election the Worker's Party made some significant wins.
There are a few things I think are important to consider:
1. Credibility of the opposition. Opposition should not exist for opposition's sake. Many opposition candidates are simply... not that impressive. A good example is the Progress Singapore Party you mentioned (it is a new party, not the most representative of the opposition). Their rhetoric comes across as xenophobic and racist primarily against Indian immigration, which frankly seems to just be pandering to middle-aged, Chinese voters. Of course incompetency exists in the ruling party as well but I won't go there.
2. Where do we want to end up? I don't think it's wise to simply rush into "copying" another country's political system. Frankly, I believe that the 2-party system seen in many countries is the "worst case" equilibrium that we should try to avoid falling into. We are now in the midst of the rare process of political change and I don't mind that it happens in slow steps. Let the Worker's Party prove themselves. Let the ruling party take in the lessons from the election and improve themselves or change their policies. It all ultimately works for the improvement of the country which is great news!
3. On the note of not imitating other countries, one thing I am glad to see is emphasis and scrutiny on political integrity. We recently had a case of an MP being caught lying in Parliament and it was taken very seriously. I do certainly hope twitter politics never takes foot here.
Opposition does exist in Singapore's politics, and in fact they do get quite a large share of votes (~40% across many constituencies), it's just that due to the first-past-the-post system the number of opposition MPs that make it into Parliament is extremely small, and thus the ruling party has effectively full control over Parliament.
Now this is definitely a clear flaw of the system but things are changing - younger people are more willing to run as opposition candidates and in the most recent election the Worker's Party made some significant wins.
There are a few things I think are important to consider:
1. Credibility of the opposition. Opposition should not exist for opposition's sake. Many opposition candidates are simply... not that impressive. A good example is the Progress Singapore Party you mentioned (it is a new party, not the most representative of the opposition). Their rhetoric comes across as xenophobic and racist primarily against Indian immigration, which frankly seems to just be pandering to middle-aged, Chinese voters. Of course incompetency exists in the ruling party as well but I won't go there.
2. Where do we want to end up? I don't think it's wise to simply rush into "copying" another country's political system. Frankly, I believe that the 2-party system seen in many countries is the "worst case" equilibrium that we should try to avoid falling into. We are now in the midst of the rare process of political change and I don't mind that it happens in slow steps. Let the Worker's Party prove themselves. Let the ruling party take in the lessons from the election and improve themselves or change their policies. It all ultimately works for the improvement of the country which is great news!
3. On the note of not imitating other countries, one thing I am glad to see is emphasis and scrutiny on political integrity. We recently had a case of an MP being caught lying in Parliament and it was taken very seriously. I do certainly hope twitter politics never takes foot here.
>at the cost of human rights.
What human rights exactly?
What human rights exactly?
That was a rhetorical question I suppose, in the sense of "whose definition is supposedly the universal one":
Jonas Čeika has philosophical deep dive [0] into the topic of human rights worth watching.
[0] https://youtu.be/AhRBsJYWR8Q
[0] https://youtu.be/AhRBsJYWR8Q
People are down-voting you. But to them, I'd like to say, how can you read this and not be shocked?
> To illustrate how Better.sg tries to diffuse tensions, Keerthi recounted how a dark-skinned, ethnically South Asian member of the group had proposed a project after an interaction that she considered racist. She’d gone to an ethnically Chinese doctor with a dermatological complaint, but he refused to accept her as a patient, saying he couldn’t confidently diagnose conditions on dark skin. She wanted to build a map that collated reports of similar incidents with medical professionals. Keerthi said that he suggested an alternative product: why not build an image library of how skin conditions present on different skin tones, to help doctors out?
It feels like they're unwilling to accept, at a very fundamental level, that the issue wasn't that the doctor "can't diagnose X", but rather that they would prefer not to diagnose X.
> A digital education plan for the pandemic assumed that all children had access to devices, and that all households had one parent spare to supervise them, he added. That simply wasn’t the case, and lower income families suffered disproportionately. “You can map these dysfunctions and asymmetries onto certain socioeconomic statuses,” Kuah said.
This is again one of the more paternalistic aspects of the system at play, they're unwilling to accept anything that falls outside of their "norm," where they — a small subset of powerful people — get to define what is the norm — not the people who live there.
> In a country that’s notoriously obsessed with safety, where jaywalking and failing to wear a seatbelt can be punished with jail time, migrant workers can be transported on the expressways in the back of goods vehicles. Calls for change after a series of fatal accidents this year were rejected, on the grounds it would be too expensive for their employers.
I find this to be insanely inhuman, anyone who falls outside their preferred norm is the subhuman, or the untermensch. Their existence does not matter. Their concerns don't matter.
> The coronavirus burned through the close-packed migrant dormitories. By the end of 2020, more than 150,000 migrant workers, nearly half of them, had been infected, compared to just 4,000 in the general population.
> Inside the dorms, the systems seemed calibrated to trigger near-constant lockdowns; each time a positive case is found in a dormitory, its residents are isolated. Eighteen months on, migrants are still largely shut in. They’re only allowed to leave their dormitories to work, or, once a week, for a few hours at a designated recreation centre.
> That time [went] very fast… but on the other hand, very slow,” he told Rest of World. “All day we stay in the dormitory, [in the] same room. We cannot go out, [we were] only allowed to go to the toilet and shower. Even cannot go [into the] corridor.” Nights were the worst. Having spent most of the day sitting on his bed, watching movies on his phone, he found it hard to sleep. “This was a very, very bad time,” he said.
They've put a group of people, whom they consider to be the untermensch, within group housing where their movement is restricted and they are locked in.
There will be some who will make the parallel to lockdowns in the US and the rest of the developed world, but fundamentally, those lockdowns were about sheltering in place at home, applied equally across the population, and gave people autonomy to go out for essential needs etc.
This targets a specific sub-population. They are forced to live together in dorms. And they can only access recreation for a few hours every week.
That's a prison in all but name.
> People have to trust that there are limits to this organizing principle. If the government changed its mind about enforcing the law on homosexuality, for example, “it would be able to subpoena the location data of every queer person in Singapore to see who they’re meeting,” Rajeswari said. “There are jokes in our community about the government having files on us… but they’re morbid jokes.”
> In 2020, he was jailed for 10 days for hosting a live discussion via Skype with the Hong Kong pro-democracy figurehead Joshua Wong.
It's a "utopia" for sociopaths.
> To illustrate how Better.sg tries to diffuse tensions, Keerthi recounted how a dark-skinned, ethnically South Asian member of the group had proposed a project after an interaction that she considered racist. She’d gone to an ethnically Chinese doctor with a dermatological complaint, but he refused to accept her as a patient, saying he couldn’t confidently diagnose conditions on dark skin. She wanted to build a map that collated reports of similar incidents with medical professionals. Keerthi said that he suggested an alternative product: why not build an image library of how skin conditions present on different skin tones, to help doctors out?
It feels like they're unwilling to accept, at a very fundamental level, that the issue wasn't that the doctor "can't diagnose X", but rather that they would prefer not to diagnose X.
> A digital education plan for the pandemic assumed that all children had access to devices, and that all households had one parent spare to supervise them, he added. That simply wasn’t the case, and lower income families suffered disproportionately. “You can map these dysfunctions and asymmetries onto certain socioeconomic statuses,” Kuah said.
This is again one of the more paternalistic aspects of the system at play, they're unwilling to accept anything that falls outside of their "norm," where they — a small subset of powerful people — get to define what is the norm — not the people who live there.
> In a country that’s notoriously obsessed with safety, where jaywalking and failing to wear a seatbelt can be punished with jail time, migrant workers can be transported on the expressways in the back of goods vehicles. Calls for change after a series of fatal accidents this year were rejected, on the grounds it would be too expensive for their employers.
I find this to be insanely inhuman, anyone who falls outside their preferred norm is the subhuman, or the untermensch. Their existence does not matter. Their concerns don't matter.
> The coronavirus burned through the close-packed migrant dormitories. By the end of 2020, more than 150,000 migrant workers, nearly half of them, had been infected, compared to just 4,000 in the general population.
> Inside the dorms, the systems seemed calibrated to trigger near-constant lockdowns; each time a positive case is found in a dormitory, its residents are isolated. Eighteen months on, migrants are still largely shut in. They’re only allowed to leave their dormitories to work, or, once a week, for a few hours at a designated recreation centre.
> That time [went] very fast… but on the other hand, very slow,” he told Rest of World. “All day we stay in the dormitory, [in the] same room. We cannot go out, [we were] only allowed to go to the toilet and shower. Even cannot go [into the] corridor.” Nights were the worst. Having spent most of the day sitting on his bed, watching movies on his phone, he found it hard to sleep. “This was a very, very bad time,” he said.
They've put a group of people, whom they consider to be the untermensch, within group housing where their movement is restricted and they are locked in.
There will be some who will make the parallel to lockdowns in the US and the rest of the developed world, but fundamentally, those lockdowns were about sheltering in place at home, applied equally across the population, and gave people autonomy to go out for essential needs etc.
This targets a specific sub-population. They are forced to live together in dorms. And they can only access recreation for a few hours every week.
That's a prison in all but name.
> People have to trust that there are limits to this organizing principle. If the government changed its mind about enforcing the law on homosexuality, for example, “it would be able to subpoena the location data of every queer person in Singapore to see who they’re meeting,” Rajeswari said. “There are jokes in our community about the government having files on us… but they’re morbid jokes.”
> In 2020, he was jailed for 10 days for hosting a live discussion via Skype with the Hong Kong pro-democracy figurehead Joshua Wong.
It's a "utopia" for sociopaths.
I don't believe in utopia, and any time I see a supposed utopia that is too good to be true I cringe a little.
This isn't rooted in cynicism but in what I think is an accurate understanding of life.
Life exists in a perpetual state of war against entropy. There are always massive problems. Your body spends anywhere from 20% to 50% (depending on how you count it) of its metabolic energy just not falling apart. If your body stopped doing this you would turn into mush in a few days... almost literally.
So if you look at a place and it looks like utopia, there are a few possibilities:
(1) Everyone is paying through the nose in the form of taxes or other fees to pay other people to fix things.
(2) The problems are being hidden through a campaign of propaganda and cosmetics. The extreme of this is known as a "Potemkin village."
(3) There is a system of slavery or near-slavery in which an underclass is handling all the dirty work.
(4) There are massive problems you are just not seeing yet because you are not looking closely enough. This often happens when people visit somewhere or live there briefly but do not stay long enough to really get to know the place deeply.
Singapore has low taxes. Their situation seems to be a mix of options 2-4.
Oh, and on lockdowns:
> There will be some who will make the parallel to lockdowns in the US and the rest of the developed world, but fundamentally, those lockdowns were about sheltering in place at home, applied equally across the population, and gave people autonomy to go out for essential needs etc.
I would argue that the US barely even had true "lockdowns." There were few places in the US where anyone actually got in real trouble for going out, not wearing a mask, etc. There were places of business and public buildings who would turn you away, sure, but that's about as soft of a glove as you can get here. I see tons and tons of people completely ignoring COVID orders and nothing happened to them.
I don't think I want it different. I will call people stupid for ignoring COVID orders and not getting vaccinated, but if I saw people getting arrested I don't think I would be okay with that.
This isn't rooted in cynicism but in what I think is an accurate understanding of life.
Life exists in a perpetual state of war against entropy. There are always massive problems. Your body spends anywhere from 20% to 50% (depending on how you count it) of its metabolic energy just not falling apart. If your body stopped doing this you would turn into mush in a few days... almost literally.
So if you look at a place and it looks like utopia, there are a few possibilities:
(1) Everyone is paying through the nose in the form of taxes or other fees to pay other people to fix things.
(2) The problems are being hidden through a campaign of propaganda and cosmetics. The extreme of this is known as a "Potemkin village."
(3) There is a system of slavery or near-slavery in which an underclass is handling all the dirty work.
(4) There are massive problems you are just not seeing yet because you are not looking closely enough. This often happens when people visit somewhere or live there briefly but do not stay long enough to really get to know the place deeply.
Singapore has low taxes. Their situation seems to be a mix of options 2-4.
Oh, and on lockdowns:
> There will be some who will make the parallel to lockdowns in the US and the rest of the developed world, but fundamentally, those lockdowns were about sheltering in place at home, applied equally across the population, and gave people autonomy to go out for essential needs etc.
I would argue that the US barely even had true "lockdowns." There were few places in the US where anyone actually got in real trouble for going out, not wearing a mask, etc. There were places of business and public buildings who would turn you away, sure, but that's about as soft of a glove as you can get here. I see tons and tons of people completely ignoring COVID orders and nothing happened to them.
I don't think I want it different. I will call people stupid for ignoring COVID orders and not getting vaccinated, but if I saw people getting arrested I don't think I would be okay with that.
I realize that it might not be clear from my tone, but I deeply agree with you.
This reminds me of the HK story. I'm happy to provide more color elsewhere (feel free to reach out via twitter or email), but essentially the no-tax government was deeply involved with the triads and the construction industry. There was a tax system alright, except one that was enforced with gangs and shady deals rather than lawyers.
This reminds me of the HK story. I'm happy to provide more color elsewhere (feel free to reach out via twitter or email), but essentially the no-tax government was deeply involved with the triads and the construction industry. There was a tax system alright, except one that was enforced with gangs and shady deals rather than lawyers.
Why is it a bad place to live, for someone who isn't part of the 1984 fandom?
You're getting downvoted because your post is incredibly disrespectful to countries where the main demographics are historically oppressed groups. Obviously North Koreans love North Korea, or else it wouldn't exist.
While I don’t argue with the article, as someone who worked for a while in Singapore I have a different take: I travel extensively and it seemed to me that people in Singapore were happy, productive, going about their work and leisure. I really loved it there, but I did spend about 15 minutes reading stuff on the web about their laws before going there.
I live in the USA, and it seems like culturally we tend to think that our country is the best place in all dimensions. I love traveling and enjoying the differences in different places. I think that it is a slippery slope downwards criticizing different cultures and legal systems.
I live in the USA, and it seems like culturally we tend to think that our country is the best place in all dimensions. I love traveling and enjoying the differences in different places. I think that it is a slippery slope downwards criticizing different cultures and legal systems.
When I lived there a while back the shock to me was the “What nationality are you?” when trying to find a place to rent. Discrimination was commonplace and even explained away by the majority.
I will say that the “law and order” aspect is way overblown. Residents will break laws and take shortcuts just as they do in the West. The difference is the government will not hesitate to make an example out of you (doubly if a foreigner).
It is very impressive what Singapore has accomplished but there are a lot of problems under the surface that rich expats never see.
Oh and the deference to authority is prevalent. Their Covid contract tracing app went from “for Covid only” to “general law enforcement” right quick with barely a peep from the voters before the govt passed a law making it all “legal”.
I will say that the “law and order” aspect is way overblown. Residents will break laws and take shortcuts just as they do in the West. The difference is the government will not hesitate to make an example out of you (doubly if a foreigner).
It is very impressive what Singapore has accomplished but there are a lot of problems under the surface that rich expats never see.
Oh and the deference to authority is prevalent. Their Covid contract tracing app went from “for Covid only” to “general law enforcement” right quick with barely a peep from the voters before the govt passed a law making it all “legal”.
That's common throughout Asia, also bookings getting canceled when they realize you're not "that" kind of American. As a non-white American who's traveled extensively throughout Asia and Europe I'm very confident when I say that the US is one of the least racist places in the world. Not saying it's perfect, dont want to hear your thoughts on the "the system." The kind of candid in your face "I dont like your skin color" that you read about in school actually is more prolific outside of the US than in it. We've overcome a lot and America is great for that. Thank you civil rights movement.
I have a theory about this: in America people seem to be aware that at least some of them are racists. Therefore, they're doing something about it.
In the places I've been to in Asia, racism is not something that's actively thought about. People still have biases within them, but because it's not something they ever discuss or think about. Hence they don't even realize they have those biases.
Perhaps one reason could be that some those places aren't very racially diverse to begin with, at least not as much as America.
I'm from Asia, and I've lived in America for a few years. Trust me, I was treated more politely in America than I would've been in my own home country lol.
In the places I've been to in Asia, racism is not something that's actively thought about. People still have biases within them, but because it's not something they ever discuss or think about. Hence they don't even realize they have those biases.
Perhaps one reason could be that some those places aren't very racially diverse to begin with, at least not as much as America.
I'm from Asia, and I've lived in America for a few years. Trust me, I was treated more politely in America than I would've been in my own home country lol.
fomine3(1)
You know, I've thought this same thing for a while now. I'm an immigrant to the USA and I've traveled extensively. All these woke folks that try to make it seem like America is the world's most racist hellhole crack me up. They're clearly the kinds of Americans who never got passports.
Please do not take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. It's tedious, repetitive, and nasty. The comment you replied to was on the right side of the line, while yours pushed the thread into hell. Not cool.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: it also seems like your account is on the border of using HN primarily for political/ideological battle. That's the line at which we ban accounts, because it's the line at which they start being destructive of the site. If you'd please fix this, and use HN as intended (for intellectual curiosity and thoughtful conversation), we'd appreciate it.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: it also seems like your account is on the border of using HN primarily for political/ideological battle. That's the line at which we ban accounts, because it's the line at which they start being destructive of the site. If you'd please fix this, and use HN as intended (for intellectual curiosity and thoughtful conversation), we'd appreciate it.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
jonnybgood(2)
Says the person who never had guns drawn on them just for their skin color.
Please do not take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. It's tedious, repetitive, and nasty.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
zzzzzzzza(2)
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Discrimination was commonplace and even explained away by the majority.
Could you name a few example? I have college friend who live and work there, and they never mentioned discrimination. Although we are both Chinese mainlander, might be treated as part of majority.
Could you name a few example? I have college friend who live and work there, and they never mentioned discrimination. Although we are both Chinese mainlander, might be treated as part of majority.
I'm surprised - China's recent foreign policy certainly has not endeared it to South East Asian countries, but even before then mainland Chinese were not exactly treated with open arms in Singapore. You probably won't find it said to your face, but xenophobia against foreigners from China and India is definitely not uncommon.
Discrimination against Chinese goes back 500 years.
There are several reasons: Chinese are rich. Nobody likes the rich. Chinese are foreigners. Nobody likes foreigners. Chinese are heretics and infidels. Nobody likes those. Another cause is the, admittedly brilliant, tactic of divide and conquer that Western colonial powers used. Set the natives up against the Chinese merchants instead of white government officials. The Chinese conveniently lacked the firearms and navy guns that the whites had access to.
There have been many downright genocidal riots against the Chinese across the region. The Chinese government was too weak to do anything about it.
There are several reasons: Chinese are rich. Nobody likes the rich. Chinese are foreigners. Nobody likes foreigners. Chinese are heretics and infidels. Nobody likes those. Another cause is the, admittedly brilliant, tactic of divide and conquer that Western colonial powers used. Set the natives up against the Chinese merchants instead of white government officials. The Chinese conveniently lacked the firearms and navy guns that the whites had access to.
There have been many downright genocidal riots against the Chinese across the region. The Chinese government was too weak to do anything about it.
That's not the case here - Singapore is majority Chinese. The sentiments you see are more run of the mill xenophobia - Chinese mainlanders are here to take our jobs, they're loud and unhygienic, they can't speak English, their Chinese has a different accent, etc. You won't hear it being said to your face, but these are not uncommon views.
The comment was about mainland Chinese specifically, not ethnic Chinese, who in Singapore form the majority of the population. In countries like Indonesia--where riots like ones you mentioned have taken place--they are a small minority.
> When I lived there a while back the shock to me was the “What nationality are you?”
Why do they feel the need to ask that question? Are issues with people of specific nationality more prevalent?
Why do they feel the need to ask that question? Are issues with people of specific nationality more prevalent?
Anecdote from when I lived there: Some landlords would prefer not to have Indian tenants to avoid them stinking the kitchen out as they often cook very aromatic food.
Nothing different than what I encountered who don't like Chinese students tenants because we like to cook ourself, and Chinese cooking uses stir frying a lot which causes a lot of smell...
Most kitchens are not equipped to deal with it. Over time the oil particles build up and coat everything in a near impenetrable layer.
My wife is Singaporean with Indian heritage, and from what she's told me I think it's because Chinese Singaporeans don't like Indians.
I was renting an apartment in Portugal, and the landlord said me the same thing. I love curry, It didn't bother me, but sounds like an issue.
from my short experience living in Hong Kong and travelling the region a bit.. there is a common, daily practice of identifying people by race and language, that is explicitly discouraged or illegal in the USA
Racial quotas also exist to my knowledge for some residence communities.
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Someone correct me if I am wrong.
Singapore has racial quotas for public housing (where most of the population lives) and the reason is to prevent ethnic enclaves from forming.
https://www.gov.sg/article/hdbs-ethnic-integration-policy-wh...
you're very far down for someone that has absolutely the most precise reason...
It only applies to purchasing a resell flat. Renters are not affected by this.
I recall seeing signs in windows like "Staff needed, Malays need not apply" etc
>When I lived there a while back the shock to me was the “What nationality are you?” when trying to find a place to rent. Discrimination was commonplace and even explained away by the majority.
So, like the US, but with less hypocrisy about it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#Current_issues
So, like the US, but with less hypocrisy about it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#Current_issues
I'm not interested in defending redlining, but you _cannot_ ask the question at issue in the US.
That's the hypocrisy part: you can still do it, and it happens all the time, but covertly.
No, it’s actually illegal in the US, people have been penalized for doing it and if you are a victim of it there are ways to report it.
In Singapore it’s just tolerated.
In Singapore it’s just tolerated.
> No, it’s actually illegal in the US
You are misunderstanding what the GP comment said. The reality is that landlords/employers can and do discriminate based on race, religion, age, etc all the time. They simply just can't say it out loud, that's the illegal part.
I find that Asian people tend to be pretty open about this stuff, whereas in the west it's taboo. Don't think that anyone would be foolish enough to try arguing that there's no silent discrimination occurring in the US.
You are misunderstanding what the GP comment said. The reality is that landlords/employers can and do discriminate based on race, religion, age, etc all the time. They simply just can't say it out loud, that's the illegal part.
I find that Asian people tend to be pretty open about this stuff, whereas in the west it's taboo. Don't think that anyone would be foolish enough to try arguing that there's no silent discrimination occurring in the US.
[deleted]
I have a similar take. I lived in SG for ~5 years, many years ago (90s). There's a lot I would like to criticize on abstract principles about the politics, the surveillance state, the lack of freedoms, some very draconian laws and social norms. However, that instinct is always tempered by the fact that, in practice, Singapore's society seems to work phenomenally better than most other countries for most of its citizens, even for the working class and poor, which is quite an achievement in such a high-income/standard-of-living country.
It's a unique place in every sense: social and cultural issues, economy, geography, history, leadership, etc. It's a very interesting country to study, but the most important thing in any analysis of Singapore is that lessons from Singapore almost certainly don't extrapolate well to anywhere else; don't draw conclusions about how some other country should be run based on what works there.
It's a unique place in every sense: social and cultural issues, economy, geography, history, leadership, etc. It's a very interesting country to study, but the most important thing in any analysis of Singapore is that lessons from Singapore almost certainly don't extrapolate well to anywhere else; don't draw conclusions about how some other country should be run based on what works there.
" Singapore's society seems to work phenomenally better than most other countries for most of its citizens, "
Singapore is a safe banking haven in a sea of legal risk and chaos.
Singapore was effectively an (almost) empty plot of land when it was established, and it was designed to be an 'banking/commercial haven'.
What makes Singpore 'rich' is the foundation established by the UK as having 'rule of law' and 'peace and order'.
As long as Singpore remains peaceful and orderly, where the commercial law is respected and foreign entities trust that their money is safe and they will get a fair deal, and that ability is not available in surrounding nations (which it isn't, even today), they they will do well.
If you're a Western company looking for a 'gateway to Asia', then Singapore is a good choice. It was literally built to be that.
It's a little bit how Swiss standard of living is supplemented by the fact that 1/3 of the world's offshore money is parked there, and that surplus benefits the locals.
Like a more complicated version of having 'Oil Wealth'.
It is what it is, and we have to be careful about criticism from afar, but that doesn't mean we can't be critical.
Singapore is a safe banking haven in a sea of legal risk and chaos.
Singapore was effectively an (almost) empty plot of land when it was established, and it was designed to be an 'banking/commercial haven'.
What makes Singpore 'rich' is the foundation established by the UK as having 'rule of law' and 'peace and order'.
As long as Singpore remains peaceful and orderly, where the commercial law is respected and foreign entities trust that their money is safe and they will get a fair deal, and that ability is not available in surrounding nations (which it isn't, even today), they they will do well.
If you're a Western company looking for a 'gateway to Asia', then Singapore is a good choice. It was literally built to be that.
It's a little bit how Swiss standard of living is supplemented by the fact that 1/3 of the world's offshore money is parked there, and that surplus benefits the locals.
Like a more complicated version of having 'Oil Wealth'.
It is what it is, and we have to be careful about criticism from afar, but that doesn't mean we can't be critical.
> it was designed to be an 'banking/commercial haven'
Singapore was a trading port from it's first conception when the Sultan of Johor sold the basically uninhabited swamp island to the British. When they were amicably booted out of Malaysia the country was one of the poorest on Earth, they had no natural resources, rampant poverty and unemployment, no military and infrastructure was in a terrible state. They somehow managed to completely turn that around in half a century, if you look at other new nations formed since then not a single one has managed to even come close to their success despite having vastly superior natural advantages. The Balkan states in particular come to mind, they also had a chance to start anew with a clean slate in the 90's and 30 years on they are a collective basketcase of nations whose younger population is abandoning in droves.
40% of all shipping traffic on Earth passes through their waters, the Port of Singapore is the worlds 2nd busiest by tonnage handled. People associate the country with finance while ignoring the sheer volume of cargo that moves through there.
> Like a more complicated version of having 'Oil Wealth'.
Find this comparison very hard to grok. Any country on Earth could copypaste Singaporean banking and corporate laws today if they wanted to, there's nothing stopping them. Now those same countries can't magically have the oil reserves of the Saudis or Venezuela.
> What makes Singpore 'rich' is the foundation established by the UK as having 'rule of law' and 'peace and order'.
By that metric all former colonies should be thriving?
Singapore was a trading port from it's first conception when the Sultan of Johor sold the basically uninhabited swamp island to the British. When they were amicably booted out of Malaysia the country was one of the poorest on Earth, they had no natural resources, rampant poverty and unemployment, no military and infrastructure was in a terrible state. They somehow managed to completely turn that around in half a century, if you look at other new nations formed since then not a single one has managed to even come close to their success despite having vastly superior natural advantages. The Balkan states in particular come to mind, they also had a chance to start anew with a clean slate in the 90's and 30 years on they are a collective basketcase of nations whose younger population is abandoning in droves.
40% of all shipping traffic on Earth passes through their waters, the Port of Singapore is the worlds 2nd busiest by tonnage handled. People associate the country with finance while ignoring the sheer volume of cargo that moves through there.
> Like a more complicated version of having 'Oil Wealth'.
Find this comparison very hard to grok. Any country on Earth could copypaste Singaporean banking and corporate laws today if they wanted to, there's nothing stopping them. Now those same countries can't magically have the oil reserves of the Saudis or Venezuela.
> What makes Singpore 'rich' is the foundation established by the UK as having 'rule of law' and 'peace and order'.
By that metric all former colonies should be thriving?
Just because a nation 'has laws' does not mean they are implemented well, or effective.
Singapore had Colonial 'laws' 'order' and 'policy' and what amounted to national strategy that worked well within their context as I pointed out in my first sentence: good commercial law in a sea of chaos.
Also, they were a 'fresh slate' without historical ethnic groups, political causes, large swaths of poor, under-performing industries to be subsidized. They can focus on the 'high surplus' activities and leave everyone else to worry about the other things.
Much like if Manhattan were to 'separate' from the US, kick out the poor people, and still control 65% of US banking activity - Manhattan would be much richer and the US somewhat poorer. They could bring in poor worker / non-citizens from upstate NY etc. and keep social costs externalized.
'Any state' cold 'copy' the Singapore model, yes, and the results would be they would probably be 'much better' (if they came from a bad starting point) but not as good as Singapore because of their strategic placement.
If India were to be as efficiently run as Singapore, they would all be 25x wealthier just as a matter of efficient organization.
But it'd be impossible to 'copy' the model because of historical, legacy political forces, every group and party wanting their supposed piece of the pie. And of course, 'efficient organization' is one thing, but without some kind of strategic industrial advantage, it's a bit harder. Of course, India could focus on being the 'IT / Software' power house of the world, and if they did that, then backed by efficient organization, they would be a 'rich' country.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are 'clean slate' (mostly) colonies with an effective colonial bureaucracy, and at least some advantage of natural resources, and they are rich.
And FYI if every nation surrounding Singapore did adopt their model of governance, Singapore would be much less important in the equation, much like if the 'Rest of China' became as trustworthy, consistent and fair minded as Hong Kong ... then Hong Kong would lose much of it's advantage.
Singapore had Colonial 'laws' 'order' and 'policy' and what amounted to national strategy that worked well within their context as I pointed out in my first sentence: good commercial law in a sea of chaos.
Also, they were a 'fresh slate' without historical ethnic groups, political causes, large swaths of poor, under-performing industries to be subsidized. They can focus on the 'high surplus' activities and leave everyone else to worry about the other things.
Much like if Manhattan were to 'separate' from the US, kick out the poor people, and still control 65% of US banking activity - Manhattan would be much richer and the US somewhat poorer. They could bring in poor worker / non-citizens from upstate NY etc. and keep social costs externalized.
'Any state' cold 'copy' the Singapore model, yes, and the results would be they would probably be 'much better' (if they came from a bad starting point) but not as good as Singapore because of their strategic placement.
If India were to be as efficiently run as Singapore, they would all be 25x wealthier just as a matter of efficient organization.
But it'd be impossible to 'copy' the model because of historical, legacy political forces, every group and party wanting their supposed piece of the pie. And of course, 'efficient organization' is one thing, but without some kind of strategic industrial advantage, it's a bit harder. Of course, India could focus on being the 'IT / Software' power house of the world, and if they did that, then backed by efficient organization, they would be a 'rich' country.
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are 'clean slate' (mostly) colonies with an effective colonial bureaucracy, and at least some advantage of natural resources, and they are rich.
And FYI if every nation surrounding Singapore did adopt their model of governance, Singapore would be much less important in the equation, much like if the 'Rest of China' became as trustworthy, consistent and fair minded as Hong Kong ... then Hong Kong would lose much of it's advantage.
> The Balkan states in particular come to mind, they also had a chance to start anew with a clean slate in the 90's
This is an ignorant thing to say and it borders on orientalism and ignores all the facts that led to them being "basket cases".
I would say it's unfair but it's mostly lazy.
This is an ignorant thing to say and it borders on orientalism and ignores all the facts that led to them being "basket cases".
I would say it's unfair but it's mostly lazy.
Well it helps to be a tax haven I'm sure. Look at Luxembourg, Jersey, Cayman Islands. When you are a small country able to suck in other countries taxes, it makes everything easier.
If you remove that from the equation, what makes SG, or any of the aforementioned places, so special?
If you remove that from the equation, what makes SG, or any of the aforementioned places, so special?
SG have the one most use port in the world(state company) for example, the most skill labor index(surpass silicon valley), strong manufacture sector
I got the same impression for those living the condo lifestyle but while safe, I don't think it's much fun for those eking out an existence hawking or working as a checkout assistant at Cold Storage.
And being a Bangladeshi migrant worker is fucking awful and not particularly safe.
There's an undercurrent of really horrible shit going on underneath the shiny surface:
* https://tnp.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/maid-who-killed-... (she probably was abused a lot, it is very common...)
* https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57563235 (the pinnacle of maid abuse)
* https://archive.md/RCAI2 (tl;dr don't try to protest being paid less to drive a bus because of your race. they will toss you in prison and beat the shit out of you before deporting you)
And being a Bangladeshi migrant worker is fucking awful and not particularly safe.
There's an undercurrent of really horrible shit going on underneath the shiny surface:
* https://tnp.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/maid-who-killed-... (she probably was abused a lot, it is very common...)
* https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57563235 (the pinnacle of maid abuse)
* https://archive.md/RCAI2 (tl;dr don't try to protest being paid less to drive a bus because of your race. they will toss you in prison and beat the shit out of you before deporting you)
You get better working conditions in Eastern Europe. No one will try to murder or abuse you (other than financially), yet passive aggresive racism exists at every corner.
I live in Poland and have immigrant friends. Rest assured there is very real physical violence towards migrants from both former Soviet Union countries as well as Western countries.
You have to watch out for your safety all the time. Just a few weeks ago my friend's bf was beaten up along with several of his friends in Warsaw. The police has done nothing, the embassy has done nothing (they are from on the biggest Western EU countries). You won't read about it in the newspaper either.
You have to watch out for your safety all the time. Just a few weeks ago my friend's bf was beaten up along with several of his friends in Warsaw. The police has done nothing, the embassy has done nothing (they are from on the biggest Western EU countries). You won't read about it in the newspaper either.
Not surprised at Poland being unsafe for migrants, having an elected conservative government that recently banned abortion and is currently also having a row with the EU over who's laws they should enforce first.
I've never feared being out in Singapore, even at 4am at night, in any part of the city.
I also never feared police or the state for that matter in Singapore, if I didn't do anything illegal.
I cannot say the same for the USA, where there are "no go" areas in all major cities (and many smaller ones), crime stats are way higher, and an encounter with a cop can turn sour way more easily.
Not to mention I had an accident (in Singapore) and my friend called the ambulance there, and had to spend the night on a hospital, where they did several tests, and the cost was like $100 for first rate care in ultra-modern facilities.
I also never feared police or the state for that matter in Singapore, if I didn't do anything illegal.
I cannot say the same for the USA, where there are "no go" areas in all major cities (and many smaller ones), crime stats are way higher, and an encounter with a cop can turn sour way more easily.
Not to mention I had an accident (in Singapore) and my friend called the ambulance there, and had to spend the night on a hospital, where they did several tests, and the cost was like $100 for first rate care in ultra-modern facilities.
I don't think the US is a good comparison.
The amount of "mindbending messed up"/"distropian" stuff the US has from a European point of view is absurd.
The amount of "mindbending messed up"/"distropian" stuff the US has from a European point of view is absurd.
> a European point of view
Well, the slogan «‘No Way To Prevent This’, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens» is from The Onion («America's Finest News Source»)...
Well, the slogan «‘No Way To Prevent This’, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens» is from The Onion («America's Finest News Source»)...
>from a European point of view
99% of Europeans haven't been to America and only know what Hollywood movies tell them. The kind of person who thinks you can visit New York City and the Grand Canyon in the same day and have to worry about mass shooters everywhere all the time.
99% of Europeans haven't been to America and only know what Hollywood movies tell them. The kind of person who thinks you can visit New York City and the Grand Canyon in the same day and have to worry about mass shooters everywhere all the time.
Most Europeans know the US better, and have a better grasp of its politics and even which states is which, than the majority of Americans who can't even name their own Vice President.
And this is not some pop culture instilled notion, but my empirical observations on the ground. Heck, I've talked with too many people who didn't even know the major cities in their own state, 100 miles away from their town, or major parts of its own history, and might as well never even left their county...
And this is not some pop culture instilled notion, but my empirical observations on the ground. Heck, I've talked with too many people who didn't even know the major cities in their own state, 100 miles away from their town, or major parts of its own history, and might as well never even left their county...
Your observations? From what US states? and what European states?
that sounds like a less-educated-american point of view of how common citizens of Europe look like, rather than reality...
yes, the argument is also strange given that Hollywood tends to not show many of the bad sides of the US, and if so presents them as exceptions. So if your opinion is based on Hollywood the US looks pretty okay...
A fairer comparison would be the failure of San Francisco and success of Singapore. I think comparing a city essentially that is Singapore to a giant landmass of 330M people that is USA - is sort of meaningless IMO.
San Francisco has many more creatives per capita than Singapore... you can see the effects of a police state without freedom of speech in film and literature (or even a comparison with Hong Kong until very recently).
San Francisco has some very obvious problems, but there's no way I'd rather be in Singapore as someone who has worked at social media startups, crypto, and dabbling in biotech/longevity... the early opportunities aren't there because the imagination and freedom to pursue it isn't there.
It's a systems problem because allowing serious dissent and dissatisfaction can inspire innovation.
San Francisco has some very obvious problems, but there's no way I'd rather be in Singapore as someone who has worked at social media startups, crypto, and dabbling in biotech/longevity... the early opportunities aren't there because the imagination and freedom to pursue it isn't there.
It's a systems problem because allowing serious dissent and dissatisfaction can inspire innovation.
> San Francisco has many more creatives per capita than Singapore
This is out of scope.
The comparison is about city management. Not creativity.
When you talk about creativity, SF is at the forfront a giant nation of 300M people, 2 orders of magnitude larger population and market size. That naturally support more creativity and innovation.
As for how much the market contribute to your claimed advantage, it's hard to measure. It might be that indeed SF per capita creativity, excluding market impact, is better than SG. I have no reason to doubt that, but I see not proof.
Not mentioning other aspects when you are a central cit in a superpower.
This is out of scope.
The comparison is about city management. Not creativity.
When you talk about creativity, SF is at the forfront a giant nation of 300M people, 2 orders of magnitude larger population and market size. That naturally support more creativity and innovation.
As for how much the market contribute to your claimed advantage, it's hard to measure. It might be that indeed SF per capita creativity, excluding market impact, is better than SG. I have no reason to doubt that, but I see not proof.
Not mentioning other aspects when you are a central cit in a superpower.
> When you talk about creativity, SF is at the forfront a giant nation of 300M people, 2 orders of magnitude larger population and market size. That naturally support more creativity and innovation.
If we're talking about the Bay Area tech startup founders then roughly half of those are born outside of the US. Singapore could have just as easily attracted those immigrants, but they went to SF instead.
If we're talking about the Bay Area tech startup founders then roughly half of those are born outside of the US. Singapore could have just as easily attracted those immigrants, but they went to SF instead.
You are repeating my point. More creative people move to SF because there offer better chance of success, which is fundamentally determined by the market size (and capital etc). That's not because SF is managed better. Swap SF mayor and SG primer minister, you still have the same SF and SG (very likely, let's not be mirred in hypothetical assumption).
> I've never feared being out in Singapore, even at 4am at night, in any part of the city.
Same for me in Barcelona. Getting pickpocketed is the worst that can happen.
> I also never feared police or the state for that matter in Singapore, if I didn't do anything illegal.
Well that's the thing, there's a lot of stuff illegal in Singapore :)
Same for me in Barcelona. Getting pickpocketed is the worst that can happen.
> I also never feared police or the state for that matter in Singapore, if I didn't do anything illegal.
Well that's the thing, there's a lot of stuff illegal in Singapore :)
The safety aspect is true.
In terms of the police, if you are detained you have no right to remain silent and no right to counsel (until after you’ve been interrogated).
And the healthcare system is top notch and affordable, but the governments attitude is “citizens need skin the game”. Private insurance is almost a requirement otherwise the public system will leave you with thousands in out of pocket costs.
It is a remarkable country but scratch under the surface and there is a lot that doesn’t work well too.
In terms of the police, if you are detained you have no right to remain silent and no right to counsel (until after you’ve been interrogated).
And the healthcare system is top notch and affordable, but the governments attitude is “citizens need skin the game”. Private insurance is almost a requirement otherwise the public system will leave you with thousands in out of pocket costs.
It is a remarkable country but scratch under the surface and there is a lot that doesn’t work well too.
> I've never feared being out in Singapore, even at 4am at night, in any part of the city.
You might have never been in fear, but were you ever stoked? And I mean genuinely socially stoked, not the monetary excitement after winning at the casino.
Violence is a big predictor of strong sentiments among the populace.
If you don't risk taking punches and kicks, you'll hardly get the reward of hugs and kisses.
Social volatilty gives socially competent people a good opportunity to capitalize on their competence. Nowhere is this ever more clear than places like Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa, Mexico...
A socially competent person will make friends and romantic relationships as soon as they get off the plane.
A socially incompetent person will get robbed and risk mugging, again as soon as they get off the plane.
The so called dangerous places are also the fun places.
You might have never been in fear, but were you ever stoked? And I mean genuinely socially stoked, not the monetary excitement after winning at the casino.
Violence is a big predictor of strong sentiments among the populace.
If you don't risk taking punches and kicks, you'll hardly get the reward of hugs and kisses.
Social volatilty gives socially competent people a good opportunity to capitalize on their competence. Nowhere is this ever more clear than places like Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa, Mexico...
A socially competent person will make friends and romantic relationships as soon as they get off the plane.
A socially incompetent person will get robbed and risk mugging, again as soon as they get off the plane.
The so called dangerous places are also the fun places.
This strikes me as a very naive sort of romanticism, as someone who grew up in alternately a very safe and very dangerous locale.
What? If you are a socially competent person (say a rapper with > 500k followers) you can go in the most dangerous areas of Lagos and people will maybe beat and shot each other....but to host you for the night...I know this for a fact!
Of course if you are loaded but socially incompetent (say many of the billionaires in Silicon Valley or Wall Street) then your 50B net worth won't be enough for people to restrain themselves from beating you unconscious and taking you Rolex or Phatek Philippe (that your socially incompetent brain decided to sport there even though you are nobody but a walking wallet with no street cred)
Of course if you are loaded but socially incompetent (say many of the billionaires in Silicon Valley or Wall Street) then your 50B net worth won't be enough for people to restrain themselves from beating you unconscious and taking you Rolex or Phatek Philippe (that your socially incompetent brain decided to sport there even though you are nobody but a walking wallet with no street cred)
You have the most intriguing, Kanye-esque definition of social competence.
Sorry to see you getting downvoted, its an interesting perspective.
That said, even rappers seem to retire to "safer" places then these "lively" options you describe. So something about being safe appeals to many people, not just the socially incompetents'.
That said, even rappers seem to retire to "safer" places then these "lively" options you describe. So something about being safe appeals to many people, not just the socially incompetents'.
But rappers do frequent the most socially volatile areas, albeit in the US.
The US is huge and there are pockets of instability of course, especially in big metro areas such as LA, Chicago , Baltimore and Detroit.
For a socially competent person who lacks the prequalifer of fame though ,they are not that great again due to prices which are US-like
The US is huge and there are pockets of instability of course, especially in big metro areas such as LA, Chicago , Baltimore and Detroit.
For a socially competent person who lacks the prequalifer of fame though ,they are not that great again due to prices which are US-like
But for example Young Dolph, went back to get some cookies in a tougher area, blown away and killed. Not so good. It's not clear that being socially competent / successful helped him.
So when are you booking your ticket to New Orleans? coldtea and I are waiting. I'll meet you at the airport arrivals.
[deleted]
You've convinced me, I'm booking a plane to some hell-hole to 'capitalize on my competence' and achieve big-feelings...
[deleted]
As a previous Singaporean resident, you had the upper class experience. The dystopia is when you are worker class (usually Malay or Indian) and have to live in a shipping container to tear down and replace the 5 year old apartment complex down the street. Or when you are the prostitute that was imported from Vietnam to serve the local upper class population.
These people have no rights and any protesting ends them up in Changi or shipped back somewhere else.
These people have no rights and any protesting ends them up in Changi or shipped back somewhere else.
I think this is pretty valid, but I'd couch this in terms of citizens vs non-citizens. I knew and/or interacted with a lot of working-class/poor citizens and life seemed better for them there than in many countries. There are policies and universal safety nets that make it happen, with regard to housing, jobs, medical care, etc. For poor or working-class non-citizens, it's probably much bleaker.
Well lower class experience is terrible in its own unique ways whether in India/US/Singapore or any place else.
> These people have no rights and any protesting ends them up in Changi or shipped back somewhere else.
Presumably they would have rights in their own countries. Since they left those should tell something about practical value of rights when one is just trying to survive while being poor.
> These people have no rights and any protesting ends them up in Changi or shipped back somewhere else.
Presumably they would have rights in their own countries. Since they left those should tell something about practical value of rights when one is just trying to survive while being poor.
As opposed to migrant Mexican workers in the US, for example?
I'm not comparing and contrasting countries.
Just pointing out that he was an upper class non-citizen and his experience is very different from a lower class non-citizen because of that.
Just pointing out that he was an upper class non-citizen and his experience is very different from a lower class non-citizen because of that.
As compared? Absolutely!
A migrant Mexican worker has full access to the US courts, labor laws protect them, etc.
Migrant workers in Singapore are simply discarded if troublesome. Even though the population of 90%+ vaccinated (for months), migrant workers in Singapore have been confined to their dormitories (when not working) for almost 2 years now.
Pretty regularly trucks with workers in the back with get into accidents and a number will die. Government says “to expensive to make companies transport them in buses”.
There are literally two different systems for Singaporeans and foreigners.
A migrant Mexican worker has full access to the US courts, labor laws protect them, etc.
Migrant workers in Singapore are simply discarded if troublesome. Even though the population of 90%+ vaccinated (for months), migrant workers in Singapore have been confined to their dormitories (when not working) for almost 2 years now.
Pretty regularly trucks with workers in the back with get into accidents and a number will die. Government says “to expensive to make companies transport them in buses”.
There are literally two different systems for Singaporeans and foreigners.
You are describing an almost global phenomena and attributing it solely to Singapore.
Most places have some source of cheap labor that is exploited.
Most places have some source of cheap labor that is exploited.
> I think that it is a slippery slope downwards criticizing different cultures and legal systems.
On the contrary, I think this is essential. As an American, I'll note that criticizing our government is a national past-time. One that even extends beyond our country and others join in. It's important to remember we live in a democracy (don't detract by saying we live in a democratically elected republic). We perform checks and balances on our government. The government is flexible. We can learn from the good and bad from other countries and ourselves (specifically what works in states run by different parties and economies). This is great.
We also need to criticize governments and societies that are violating human rights. This cannot be ignored just because they are not seen as culturally okay by someone else.
What I think is the problem is the comparison. The "America is the greatest at everything." But also the other countries that criticize America but then ignore their own similar issues, just shifting focus. We have to criticize ourselves, but use it as a means to move forward. It can't ever be "x is bad and that's the end of the conversation." It's about a "more perfect union" than "a perfect union" because we have to constantly be improving and adapting to the changes in the world. The danger is being static and thinking what worked before or what works somewhere else automatically works else{when,where}.
The whole problem is that now we just complain and the conversations lack nuance. I'm not sure if they ever had nuance, but I do know that it is important if we're to progress from where we are now.
On the contrary, I think this is essential. As an American, I'll note that criticizing our government is a national past-time. One that even extends beyond our country and others join in. It's important to remember we live in a democracy (don't detract by saying we live in a democratically elected republic). We perform checks and balances on our government. The government is flexible. We can learn from the good and bad from other countries and ourselves (specifically what works in states run by different parties and economies). This is great.
We also need to criticize governments and societies that are violating human rights. This cannot be ignored just because they are not seen as culturally okay by someone else.
What I think is the problem is the comparison. The "America is the greatest at everything." But also the other countries that criticize America but then ignore their own similar issues, just shifting focus. We have to criticize ourselves, but use it as a means to move forward. It can't ever be "x is bad and that's the end of the conversation." It's about a "more perfect union" than "a perfect union" because we have to constantly be improving and adapting to the changes in the world. The danger is being static and thinking what worked before or what works somewhere else automatically works else{when,where}.
The whole problem is that now we just complain and the conversations lack nuance. I'm not sure if they ever had nuance, but I do know that it is important if we're to progress from where we are now.
> culturally we tend to think that our country is the best place in all dimensions
I think that is a stereotype itself, and at this point held more by non-Americans than Americans. Aside from a minority of hard core believers, what I mostly hear is complaining about the country. Especially online.
I think that is a stereotype itself, and at this point held more by non-Americans than Americans. Aside from a minority of hard core believers, what I mostly hear is complaining about the country. Especially online.
>at this point held more by non-Americans than Americans
I've seldom met Americans who didn't think so, even leftists seem to have this mental wart (well, some of them might think Canada is the apex of civilization). Manifest destiny, and everything.
I've seldom met Americans who didn't think so, even leftists seem to have this mental wart (well, some of them might think Canada is the apex of civilization). Manifest destiny, and everything.
Only 29% of Americans actually think the country is headed in the right direction. Everyone else thinks Civil War Redux is close at hand, because The Other Side is evil and destroying the country.
I can't remember the last person I met who thought the US was the best place in all regards. We're mostly aware of the problems, but completely opposed on how to fix them. The current political climate is born from that intense frustration with the status quo.
I can't remember the last person I met who thought the US was the best place in all regards. We're mostly aware of the problems, but completely opposed on how to fix them. The current political climate is born from that intense frustration with the status quo.
Well Canada is the apex of civilization once they disbar "evil chinese billionaires" from buying all real estate in Toronto :-)
[deleted]
[deleted]
Great points. Another thing I see with lot of reporting/editorializing these days that even when it is true in narrow technical sense overall it sounds dishonest.
One reason is it kind of insinuates that people can exist beyond time and space. So they can have all good things cherry-picked and be made available.
Like I see here people drooling over cheap mobile internet in India without thinking about so many good things in life are simply not available or far too costly by local purchasing power when compared to US.
One reason is it kind of insinuates that people can exist beyond time and space. So they can have all good things cherry-picked and be made available.
Like I see here people drooling over cheap mobile internet in India without thinking about so many good things in life are simply not available or far too costly by local purchasing power when compared to US.
Singapore is a real Omelas situation, where the little boy is all the migrant workers that underpin society. (Of course, the same criticism can be leveled at the US as well.)
Every country is a real Omelas situation—I don't think we're meant to read it and go "man, sucks to have to make that choice," but, "oh, it's an allegory for the society I actually live in".
The entire global economy is one, too, in fact. Not to spoil it, but that's something The Good Place ends up wrestling with by the end.
The entire global economy is one, too, in fact. Not to spoil it, but that's something The Good Place ends up wrestling with by the end.
I suppose it also attracts people that value such things.. Safety at the expense of individual liberties, orderly lives and streets etc.
I could never bear it myself. I'm from the Netherlands and I hate the way most areas there are so boring and designed by committee. I'm more attracted to cities where not every brick has to be the prescribed colour. It makes a place so much organic and interesting IMO. And I value individualism much more than an orderly society. I prefer the laissez-faire attitude in Spain over rigid policing.
This is why I'd never consider Singapore and choose to live in Spain. But this works both ways, I would imagine a lot of people live in Singapore precisely because things work that way there.
Of course not everyone has that choice but I'd say most people that are reasonably well-off do. And Singapore seems to be full of those :)
I could never bear it myself. I'm from the Netherlands and I hate the way most areas there are so boring and designed by committee. I'm more attracted to cities where not every brick has to be the prescribed colour. It makes a place so much organic and interesting IMO. And I value individualism much more than an orderly society. I prefer the laissez-faire attitude in Spain over rigid policing.
This is why I'd never consider Singapore and choose to live in Spain. But this works both ways, I would imagine a lot of people live in Singapore precisely because things work that way there.
Of course not everyone has that choice but I'd say most people that are reasonably well-off do. And Singapore seems to be full of those :)
> seemed to me that people in Singapore were happy, productive, going about their work and leisure.
Upper and middle class? I agree. The lower class and the Indonesian and Malay below them? I saw slightly more discontent.
I have mixed feelings about my time in Singapore. If you’ve never been there the only way I can accurately describe it is it’s like if Disney built a real city. I believe you would get very different results of a survey during the day vs after about 2200 or 2300, when the shoppers are all home and the street cleaners come out.
I think it absolutely earns its name as “the air conditioned city“. But… I will say that for the most part it works well, I just couldn’t do it. I did see people litter here and there, mostly lower class workers stuffing cigarette butts in nonobvious places. But I would send my older mom there without a care in the world for her safety.
As to safety… for a country with strict laws, all police still had body armor, I saw patrols of 4-5 guys all with handguns and usually two with MP5 submachine guns walking around different places, and thought it was interesting to see posters along the stations that warned you should be prepared for terrorism including where to go and how to cut off bleeding.
The whole time I was there I felt like there was an underground I couldn’t get to. That for as beautiful as the city was on the surface (it really is), that there had to be an equal but opposite underground, wether true or not.
Upper and middle class? I agree. The lower class and the Indonesian and Malay below them? I saw slightly more discontent.
I have mixed feelings about my time in Singapore. If you’ve never been there the only way I can accurately describe it is it’s like if Disney built a real city. I believe you would get very different results of a survey during the day vs after about 2200 or 2300, when the shoppers are all home and the street cleaners come out.
I think it absolutely earns its name as “the air conditioned city“. But… I will say that for the most part it works well, I just couldn’t do it. I did see people litter here and there, mostly lower class workers stuffing cigarette butts in nonobvious places. But I would send my older mom there without a care in the world for her safety.
As to safety… for a country with strict laws, all police still had body armor, I saw patrols of 4-5 guys all with handguns and usually two with MP5 submachine guns walking around different places, and thought it was interesting to see posters along the stations that warned you should be prepared for terrorism including where to go and how to cut off bleeding.
The whole time I was there I felt like there was an underground I couldn’t get to. That for as beautiful as the city was on the surface (it really is), that there had to be an equal but opposite underground, wether true or not.
>(As to safety… for a country with strict laws, all police still had body armor, I saw patrols of 4-5 guys all with handguns and usually two with MP5 submachine guns walking around different places, and thought it was interesting to see posters along the stations that warned you should be prepared for terrorism including where to go and how to cut off bleeding.
They did had issues with terrorism in the past, from islamic extremists...
They did had issues with terrorism in the past, from islamic extremists...
[deleted]
> I live in the USA, and it seems like culturally we tend to think that our country is the best place in all dimensions.
I think you're talking about 1960's. Today, this is completely opposite. In fact, I see European exceptionalism on HN which rarely gets challenged.
I think you're talking about 1960's. Today, this is completely opposite. In fact, I see European exceptionalism on HN which rarely gets challenged.
> I think that it is a slippery slope downwards criticizing different cultures and legal systems.
Considering all legal systems equal is a slippery slope to saying that only inhabitants of the "first world" deserve human and civil rights.
Considering all legal systems equal is a slippery slope to saying that only inhabitants of the "first world" deserve human and civil rights.
I also lived there. I agree with the sentiment of this comment. People do complain about the lack of art and the occasional censorship and there are problems, such as the invisible poor and the worker-slaves, but overall it is a well governed place and the best governed country in the region by a wide margin (they call it the “red dot”).
I have mixed feelings about Singapore. On one hand it stands out in the region for being clean, safe and nothing short of an economic miracle.
On the other it's an authoritarian one party system posing as a democracy where the government owns/runs more of the economy than most so-called socialist states.
It's a great example of the trade-off between personal freedoms and economic security.
On the other it's an authoritarian one party system posing as a democracy where the government owns/runs more of the economy than most so-called socialist states.
It's a great example of the trade-off between personal freedoms and economic security.
> It's a great example of the trade-off between personal freedoms and economic security.
Umm, no this isn't a trade-off you need to make. Look at Scandinavia and the rest of Europe. In Sweden, we have complete economic security and personal freedoms. I don't know why you'd think authoritarianism is a necessary trade off for even less economic security than here.
Umm, no this isn't a trade-off you need to make. Look at Scandinavia and the rest of Europe. In Sweden, we have complete economic security and personal freedoms. I don't know why you'd think authoritarianism is a necessary trade off for even less economic security than here.
It's a trade-off voters believe. It's not my own opinion. Singapore would function perfectly well without the authoritarianism I'm sure.
Disneyland With the Death Penalty [1] and revisited [2]
[1] https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/ [2] https://www.wired.com/2012/04/opinion-jeyaretnam-disneyland-...
[1] https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/ [2] https://www.wired.com/2012/04/opinion-jeyaretnam-disneyland-...
Read both - The 2nd one, gave me Deja Vu overload, the writter keeps repeating bits and pieces a couple of times through out. Pretty wierd. Interesting reads, none the less.
Singapore sounds like a seriously two-tiered society of aristocrats and serfs:
> "Lacking in natural resources, Singapore’s government has long stressed that its most important resource is its people. However, with declining birth rates and low population growth, the country increasingly relies on immigrants to help shoulder the economic burden. In 2020, Singapore’s foreign workforce stood at just under 1.23 million, out of which about 351 thousand were classified as skilled labor. Most of the foreign workforce were employed in sectors that were deemed unappealing to Singaporeans, such as in construction and the service industry, or as domestic help." [1]
https://www.statista.com/statistics/698035/singapore-number-...
The power structure looks like a kind of 'walled city'. The position of Singapore at the east end of the Straits of Malacca, a key transit route from the Indian to the Pacific Ocean, made it a trading hub and Singapore's wealth is due to extraction of a percentage of the wealth flowing through it.
> "Lacking in natural resources, Singapore’s government has long stressed that its most important resource is its people. However, with declining birth rates and low population growth, the country increasingly relies on immigrants to help shoulder the economic burden. In 2020, Singapore’s foreign workforce stood at just under 1.23 million, out of which about 351 thousand were classified as skilled labor. Most of the foreign workforce were employed in sectors that were deemed unappealing to Singaporeans, such as in construction and the service industry, or as domestic help." [1]
https://www.statista.com/statistics/698035/singapore-number-...
The power structure looks like a kind of 'walled city'. The position of Singapore at the east end of the Straits of Malacca, a key transit route from the Indian to the Pacific Ocean, made it a trading hub and Singapore's wealth is due to extraction of a percentage of the wealth flowing through it.
They also refine a bunch of the Indonesian oil, which I always found funny (refining is where the real money is, so why don't Indonesians do it themselves...?)
Indonesia nationalized all the assets of Royal Dutch Shell after independence, so there was probably some hesitation from companies to build refineries there versus Singapore.
> refining is where the real money is, so why don't Indonesians do it themselves...?
The economics of oil industry is more complicated than that. Canada does not refine most of its oil either. It's not because we don't have the technology or the money to build more refineries. It's because refining any more than the current amount does not make economic sense.
The economics of oil industry is more complicated than that. Canada does not refine most of its oil either. It's not because we don't have the technology or the money to build more refineries. It's because refining any more than the current amount does not make economic sense.
Refining is a tough very capital intensive business with very slim margins (known as the crack spread). I wouldn't say it's where all the money is at all.
Finished goods are where all the money is in capitalism, so why do any of the poor countries that export raw materials not just stop doing that and make finished goods?
Because post-colonial powers ensure that friendly (to them) people are in power that doesn't even dream of attempting it. And if that fails, they can also bomb or bring in a dictatorship.
It seems to be a very common theme in Western journalism to describe Asian countries as dystopias or dystopias in the making. Often this is based on the idea of a dystopia floating around in Western pop culture, influenced by books like Big Brother or Brave New World.
This comes with a habit of putting these societies in contrast with the western societies, and claiming the obvious superiority of the latter. This sentiment could be paraphrased as "these people are surely living in hell, and that's because they don't know how to preserve their freedom".
It's also phrased as a warning to their own people: "be careful about all those new political ideas, or we'll end up like those Asians (or Africans)".
This to me seems very much like a mixture of arrogance and ignorance which leads Westerners to believe that things are the best where they live, and it's so because they're just so smart that they could set things up this way, and they have the best culture.
It's bizarre if you take a step back and think about it, as if they're collectively patting themselves on the back, and at the same time are trying to convince themselves that the issues that they're having are nothing in comparison to the issues that others have.
This comes with a habit of putting these societies in contrast with the western societies, and claiming the obvious superiority of the latter. This sentiment could be paraphrased as "these people are surely living in hell, and that's because they don't know how to preserve their freedom".
It's also phrased as a warning to their own people: "be careful about all those new political ideas, or we'll end up like those Asians (or Africans)".
This to me seems very much like a mixture of arrogance and ignorance which leads Westerners to believe that things are the best where they live, and it's so because they're just so smart that they could set things up this way, and they have the best culture.
It's bizarre if you take a step back and think about it, as if they're collectively patting themselves on the back, and at the same time are trying to convince themselves that the issues that they're having are nothing in comparison to the issues that others have.
Nobody is calling Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia or frankly S. Korea a 'Surveillance State'. Not Japan either really.
China is being referred to as a 'Surveillance State' because it is.
Singapore has been a planned/authoritarian since the 'revolution', so it's not a stretch either.
China is being referred to as a 'Surveillance State' because it is.
Singapore has been a planned/authoritarian since the 'revolution', so it's not a stretch either.
> China is being referred to as a 'Surveillance State' because it is.
No, I think it is called because China is rich/powerful enough to put technology in place for surveillance where as many others want to but can't afford. It also has developed a kind of adversarial relationship due to its economic impact on west. So more reason look negatives one can find.
No, I think it is called because China is rich/powerful enough to put technology in place for surveillance where as many others want to but can't afford. It also has developed a kind of adversarial relationship due to its economic impact on west. So more reason look negatives one can find.
"Want to but can't afford" is quite... uncharitable ? (What is happening in, say, Japan or South Korea - surely they are rich enough ?
No, many nations have the wealth to put Orwell Tech in place, they don't because it's wrong on every level.
China controls it's citizens through absolute control of information. Every email, every text.
The 'VPN' bypass is 1) still controlled and China can shut those down as they please and 2) not hugely relevant if 99% of the population believes the facts the CCP wants them to believe.
Orwell (well, Blair) himself could not have conceived of the level of control because the tech simply didn't exist.
That said, I think you're right to hint that maybe other states have not been able to do this, but that some will.
I believe China will become a major exporter of surveillance tech in the coming decades.
China controls it's citizens through absolute control of information. Every email, every text.
The 'VPN' bypass is 1) still controlled and China can shut those down as they please and 2) not hugely relevant if 99% of the population believes the facts the CCP wants them to believe.
Orwell (well, Blair) himself could not have conceived of the level of control because the tech simply didn't exist.
That said, I think you're right to hint that maybe other states have not been able to do this, but that some will.
I believe China will become a major exporter of surveillance tech in the coming decades.
Pakistan will get there soon enough at the rate it's going
Absolutely. The author of the article lives in London, which is notorious for police surveillance (1 camera per 13 people!), but there's no way they'd write a similar article about a Western country.
>which is notorious for police surveillance (1 camera per 13 people!)
These cameras are mostly privately owned. They're not part of a police surveillance system.
Bear in mind that the Metropolitan Police only has about 33,000 officers. Even if they all spent all day watching surveillance footage, they wouldn't get anywhere close to looking at the footage from all of those cameras. What happens in practice is that lazy (or overworked) police officers will occasionally bother to retrieve CCTV footage that might be relevant to solving a crime.
I can see why people feel creeped out by CCTV cameras if they're not used to them. However, painting London as some sort of hypersurveillance environment isn't true to life (at least in my experience of living there).
It's also worth adding that CCTV is an almost absurdly inefficient means of spying on people if you actually have malicious intentions. We all now carry personal tracking devices that are immeasurably more useful for this purpose.
These cameras are mostly privately owned. They're not part of a police surveillance system.
Bear in mind that the Metropolitan Police only has about 33,000 officers. Even if they all spent all day watching surveillance footage, they wouldn't get anywhere close to looking at the footage from all of those cameras. What happens in practice is that lazy (or overworked) police officers will occasionally bother to retrieve CCTV footage that might be relevant to solving a crime.
I can see why people feel creeped out by CCTV cameras if they're not used to them. However, painting London as some sort of hypersurveillance environment isn't true to life (at least in my experience of living there).
It's also worth adding that CCTV is an almost absurdly inefficient means of spying on people if you actually have malicious intentions. We all now carry personal tracking devices that are immeasurably more useful for this purpose.
Have you checked ? I have the opposite expectation...
> Absolutely. The author of the article lives in London, which is notorious for police surveillance (1 camera per 13 people!), but there's no way they'd write a similar article about a Western country.
Are you asserting this because you've researched all the articles that Peter Guest has written, or because you just don't think he would?
A starting point on RestOfWorld - the site's name kind of gives away the focus for their reporting, so it's probably a skewed subset:
https://restofworld.org/author/peter-guest/
Are you asserting this because you've researched all the articles that Peter Guest has written, or because you just don't think he would?
A starting point on RestOfWorld - the site's name kind of gives away the focus for their reporting, so it's probably a skewed subset:
https://restofworld.org/author/peter-guest/
Not to put too fine a point on it but by a lot of measures thing were better in Western societies for the last couple of centuries, eh? Arguably things still are better. It's evening out, but only really in the last few decades.
I mean, science and the Industrial Revolution? The Enlightenment and humanitarian values?
I mean, science and the Industrial Revolution? The Enlightenment and humanitarian values?
Sure, but are they brave new world dystopia or farming societies. One has to decide.
Not clear at all. What takes the label of a BNW, what of a farming society, whether the dichotomy is descriptive or theoretical...
And they re not closed, you can live in them and see for yourself. I m a Hong Kong permanent resident now and I agree with you: these societies seem more like traditional family oriented societies than western sci fi dystopia. In effect, for most people here, the dystopia is Sweden lol
What would be dystopic about Sweden, to someone from one of these places?
Why Sweden exactly? What's special about it?
Out of all western countries, who would chose a Scandinavian one to qualify as a dystopia? They probably have among the highest standards of living in all of Europe. That sounds like the same prejudices the OP said westerners have.
If we gave aliens pictures of Baltimore and Singapore which would they pick as the dystopia?
Neither. To an alien they would look the same.
We can't differentiate an anthill in Boston Mass. from an anthill in Gerona Cuba. They look the same to us.
I only pointed that out to show how little space there is between what we call "dystopia" in Asia, and what we call the legal order our own societies. I doubt a completely uninformed but intelligent 3rd party could sus out the systemic differences between the two.
We can't differentiate an anthill in Boston Mass. from an anthill in Gerona Cuba. They look the same to us.
I only pointed that out to show how little space there is between what we call "dystopia" in Asia, and what we call the legal order our own societies. I doubt a completely uninformed but intelligent 3rd party could sus out the systemic differences between the two.
"Aliens" is so poorly defined that the question is meaningless.
Yes, Western journalism is famous for uncritically praising the West, holding it up as the realization of a perfect, flawless ideal, to which all other societies can only aspire to. But when it comes to those other societies, the headlines are filled with dire warnings that they will taint our perfect system with their backwards or dystopian ways if we allow them to immigrate.
> It seems to be a very common theme in Western journalism to describe Asian countries as dystopias or dystopias in the making.
Whereas they would never describe their own countries this way. Just look at the praise heaped upon Britain:
The Guardian view on surveillance: Big Brother is not the only watcher now - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/13/the-gu...
Welcome to London, the city that never sleeps because it’s too busy watching you. - https://www.inverse.com/article/22198-london-surveillance-th...
'We are hurtling towards a surveillance state’: the rise of facial recognition technology - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/05/facial-re...
London’s police department said on Friday that it would begin using facial recognition to spot criminal suspects with video cameras as they walk the streets, adopting a level of surveillance that is rare outside China. - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/business/london-police-fa...
Britain is at risk of becoming a surveillance state more intrusive than the Oceania of George Orwell’s 1984, a government watchdog has warned. - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/surveillance-state-becomi...
For several years now, the British media have been telling us that theirs is a surveillance society. "It could be the 4 million closed-circuit television cameras, or maybe the spy drones hovering overhead, but one way or another Britons know they are being watched. All the time. Everywhere," Luke Baker wrote in a representative Reuters article published in 2007, going on to note that "Britain is now the most intensely monitored country in the world, according to surveillance experts, with 4.2 million CCTV cameras installed, equivalent to one for every 14 people." - https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/londo...
> It seems to be a very common theme in Western journalism to describe Asian countries as dystopias or dystopias in the making.
Whereas they would never describe their own countries this way. Just look at the praise heaped upon Britain:
The Guardian view on surveillance: Big Brother is not the only watcher now - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/13/the-gu...
Welcome to London, the city that never sleeps because it’s too busy watching you. - https://www.inverse.com/article/22198-london-surveillance-th...
'We are hurtling towards a surveillance state’: the rise of facial recognition technology - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/05/facial-re...
London’s police department said on Friday that it would begin using facial recognition to spot criminal suspects with video cameras as they walk the streets, adopting a level of surveillance that is rare outside China. - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/business/london-police-fa...
Britain is at risk of becoming a surveillance state more intrusive than the Oceania of George Orwell’s 1984, a government watchdog has warned. - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/surveillance-state-becomi...
For several years now, the British media have been telling us that theirs is a surveillance society. "It could be the 4 million closed-circuit television cameras, or maybe the spy drones hovering overhead, but one way or another Britons know they are being watched. All the time. Everywhere," Luke Baker wrote in a representative Reuters article published in 2007, going on to note that "Britain is now the most intensely monitored country in the world, according to surveillance experts, with 4.2 million CCTV cameras installed, equivalent to one for every 14 people." - https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/londo...
Since the advent of worldwide social media, a cacophony of voices have come out to shame western countries.
We're constantly being accused of being xenophobic, racist, imperialist, etc. Our prideful "Western thought" is arrogant.
These accusals are a constant assault on our nationalistic sense of shared identity and worth. The idea that no matter where we came from, that this is a melting pot. One where we admire rugged individualism and freedoms, and have a sense that if we work smart and hard and try our luck enough times, we will succeed.
There's an endless barrage of voices telling us we're horrible. It's starting to seep into the youth and shape their worldview. Most of this is coming from the outside.
The thing is, we know that there are a lot of broken things. We're working on it. Democracy is a work in progress. To quote Snowden, it's "a direction". Every new year is better.
America was never going to have a monopoly on power. Globalism accelerated Asia's rise to our level within just a generation, and now we have to work much harder to stay at par. When we praise our system and decry others, know that we're not angry about this situation.
Other countries are more appealing now as a result of this great averaging out of wealth and productivity. But the rapid increase in quality of life will taper off and begin to look just like America. We're not in decline - the world is catching up.
But even amongst equals, we Americans have a pretty good idea of the shape of the world we want. We want liberty, freedom of speech, and a subservient government. We want the opportunity to beat anyone. To not have our government stand in the way as a cabal. We want to swear at our leaders and draw funny cartoons of them without having to worry about our safety. We want to vote them in and out and investigate them when they do wrong. Because sometimes we think we know better, but even if not, it's what we think we deserve.
And before you raise Singapore on a pedestal above us, please realize that they kill people for minor drug possession [1]. I'm incredibly glad we don't emulate this model. It's not for us. (We do bad enough already...)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_(Singapore...
"How dare you! Look at your awful selves first, Americans / Europeans / Cowboys!"
We're constantly being accused of being xenophobic, racist, imperialist, etc. Our prideful "Western thought" is arrogant.
These accusals are a constant assault on our nationalistic sense of shared identity and worth. The idea that no matter where we came from, that this is a melting pot. One where we admire rugged individualism and freedoms, and have a sense that if we work smart and hard and try our luck enough times, we will succeed.
There's an endless barrage of voices telling us we're horrible. It's starting to seep into the youth and shape their worldview. Most of this is coming from the outside.
The thing is, we know that there are a lot of broken things. We're working on it. Democracy is a work in progress. To quote Snowden, it's "a direction". Every new year is better.
America was never going to have a monopoly on power. Globalism accelerated Asia's rise to our level within just a generation, and now we have to work much harder to stay at par. When we praise our system and decry others, know that we're not angry about this situation.
Other countries are more appealing now as a result of this great averaging out of wealth and productivity. But the rapid increase in quality of life will taper off and begin to look just like America. We're not in decline - the world is catching up.
But even amongst equals, we Americans have a pretty good idea of the shape of the world we want. We want liberty, freedom of speech, and a subservient government. We want the opportunity to beat anyone. To not have our government stand in the way as a cabal. We want to swear at our leaders and draw funny cartoons of them without having to worry about our safety. We want to vote them in and out and investigate them when they do wrong. Because sometimes we think we know better, but even if not, it's what we think we deserve.
And before you raise Singapore on a pedestal above us, please realize that they kill people for minor drug possession [1]. I'm incredibly glad we don't emulate this model. It's not for us. (We do bad enough already...)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_(Singapore...
From your comment, I'm getting the sense that you live in a besieged fortress. It doesn't have to be so extreme though.
Singapore is no dystopia, and neither is London (in fact, I'd prefer living in the latter than the former if only because of the weather). They just make different tradeoffs in how they're organized. And they deal with different (though overlapping) sets of issues.
Singapore is no dystopia, and neither is London (in fact, I'd prefer living in the latter than the former if only because of the weather). They just make different tradeoffs in how they're organized. And they deal with different (though overlapping) sets of issues.
you lump the western world together, but the vast majority of the derision is directed at the US. Worth considering why that is?
"Not angry about this situation" describes European foreign policy, not American
"Not angry about this situation" describes European foreign policy, not American
Sorry, but this sounds like a "someone else would have robbed you anyway, and probably even killed you" bandit "defense". While it is somewhat compelling from a birds eye view of bandit sociology and figuring out better anti-bandit countermeasures, it is terrrrible as an ethical defense.
Wow. While any author would clearly have some opinion which would show in their writing, this author definitely feels too eager to paint Singapore into some kind of bleak dystopian society. My favorite part - randomly putting many pictures of security cameras throughout the article. As if office buildings anywhere in the world do not have security cameras.
One does feel very watched in Singapore, though. I remember finding it interesting that there were cameras even inside the buses for public transport.
> One does feel very watched in Singapore, though. I remember finding it interesting that there were cameras even inside the buses for public transport.
Same thing in America, this has been the case for a long time.
Helps two fold, with lawsuits against the bus company/ accusations against drivers, and of course with catching criminals.
Same thing in America, this has been the case for a long time.
Helps two fold, with lawsuits against the bus company/ accusations against drivers, and of course with catching criminals.
> Helps two fold, with lawsuits against the bus company
I think the most succinct way to describe the US to an outsider, in a way that will help them understand or explain most of the behaviors that may seem odd, is that everyone's #1 goal all the time is to avoid ever taking the blame for anything, supported by a #2 goal of finding someone else to blame. In an ideal situation, things are arranged such that no one may be blamed.
I think the most succinct way to describe the US to an outsider, in a way that will help them understand or explain most of the behaviors that may seem odd, is that everyone's #1 goal all the time is to avoid ever taking the blame for anything, supported by a #2 goal of finding someone else to blame. In an ideal situation, things are arranged such that no one may be blamed.
My mother was a school bus driver for years, parents constantly accused her of things. The camera kept her safe. "My son wasn't hitting people, the bus driver was yelling at him for no reason!"
No, your son was in fact hitting people, and the bus driver kindly asked him to stop, which is all she is allowed to do.
She would have been fired multiple times over if it wasn't for the camera disproving wild allegations from parents who want to lay responsibility on anyone but their kid.
No, your son was in fact hitting people, and the bus driver kindly asked him to stop, which is all she is allowed to do.
She would have been fired multiple times over if it wasn't for the camera disproving wild allegations from parents who want to lay responsibility on anyone but their kid.
I'm not even saying it's irrational, due to priority #2. We love to find someone to blame, then hammer them hard. Best is if we ruin someone's entire life over whatever we've found that we can blame them for.
That is what you get when you have a nation run by lawyers and bureaucrats with a sprinkling of corporate corruption on top.
Hmm, the example that jumped to my mind was instead those Russian dashcams...
There are cameras inside the buses in San Francisco too.
I certainly agree with your assessment, cameras are obscenely obvious in Singapore, which leads to the feeling of being watched. The difference, I suspect, is that more money is spent to make the cameras an obvious fixture, and you can be sure that the well-connected government is tracking you through them. In Singapore, little brother and big brother are one and the same.
I certainly agree with your assessment, cameras are obscenely obvious in Singapore, which leads to the feeling of being watched. The difference, I suspect, is that more money is spent to make the cameras an obvious fixture, and you can be sure that the well-connected government is tracking you through them. In Singapore, little brother and big brother are one and the same.
Pretty much any country rich enough to have cameras in busses does that... because it's common to have crimes on public transport and cameras help a lot with that. Do you expect privacy while on *public* transport?!
US busses are full of cameras. School busses, public transit busses. Basically all busses. I wouldn't be surprised if most charter busses have them, even.
Doesn't tesla put cameras watching the inside of its cars now?
I've never felt particularly watched in Singapore. Perhaps more so in London.
Between this and the other article from the same site about Arabic moderation of Facebook that just made the front page, I'll leave it your judgement on what's going on.
I'd prefer that you actually state some position, rather than that you expect us to guess what you're hinting at.
As with all things, there are pros and cons to Singapore's approach.
Having better surveillance is a tool which can be used for good and bad, contingent on circumstance.
For example, I live in the SF Bay Area. One highway near me (880) suffers from a very large amount of excessive speeding. A system capable of identifying speeders and charging them for their actions would be a boon for public safety. So surveillance here would be a net benefit to society.
However, surveillance being used to prevent alternative ideas from being discussed (alternative solutions to problems or alternative philosophies) is less clearly positive. On the one hand, being able to prevent bold-face misinformation (see a Trump speech for an example) could be beneficial. Preventing reasoned debate, however, detracts from society.
I don't think luddite responses to surveillance technology are effective. The technology is here. Pragmatically, its growing use in society cannot be prevented. We should instead focus on trying to maximize the good aspects of surveillance while minimizing the bad.
As an aside, I find one-sided pieces like this one off-putting. I understand the desire to spin a narrative, but in focusing exclusively on the negatives of the Singaporean approach we (the readers) are left wondering about the other side to the story.
Having better surveillance is a tool which can be used for good and bad, contingent on circumstance.
For example, I live in the SF Bay Area. One highway near me (880) suffers from a very large amount of excessive speeding. A system capable of identifying speeders and charging them for their actions would be a boon for public safety. So surveillance here would be a net benefit to society.
However, surveillance being used to prevent alternative ideas from being discussed (alternative solutions to problems or alternative philosophies) is less clearly positive. On the one hand, being able to prevent bold-face misinformation (see a Trump speech for an example) could be beneficial. Preventing reasoned debate, however, detracts from society.
I don't think luddite responses to surveillance technology are effective. The technology is here. Pragmatically, its growing use in society cannot be prevented. We should instead focus on trying to maximize the good aspects of surveillance while minimizing the bad.
As an aside, I find one-sided pieces like this one off-putting. I understand the desire to spin a narrative, but in focusing exclusively on the negatives of the Singaporean approach we (the readers) are left wondering about the other side to the story.
You are praising Singapore, where death penalties for 500g of some psychoactive substances seem to be effective.
If they were able to eradicate a technology we had for 5000+ years, I'm sure a death penalty for installing surveillance equipment/cameras could very well go a long way in Bay Area as well.
Your statements seem contradictory. Why wouldn't a death penalty for all Ring owners work?
If they were able to eradicate a technology we had for 5000+ years, I'm sure a death penalty for installing surveillance equipment/cameras could very well go a long way in Bay Area as well.
Your statements seem contradictory. Why wouldn't a death penalty for all Ring owners work?
> . A system capable of identifying speeders and charging them for their actions would be a boon for public safety. So surveillance here would be a net benefit to society.
Then you will be back complaining that "the traffic is much worse now" ;)
Chesterton's fence and all
Then you will be back complaining that "the traffic is much worse now" ;)
Chesterton's fence and all
I assume you're being contrarian. It's hard to imagine a sane person who opposes effective enforcement of reckless driving laws.
What's excessive speeding?
There is fairly robust evidence that prevailing natural speed of traffic is safest and limits that aren't appropriate for the road often reduce safety, as it is the speed differential that's dangerous, not so much the absolute number.
If you set limits too low for driving conditions, you in fact endanger people by policy, instead of helping. It's a valid and commonly raised defence against speeding in many states.
Reckless driving is distinct from excessive speeding all, probably best not to mix up two very different things.
Reckless charge can happen at any speed, even 1km/hr, but it does require proof of intent, and is a strict liability offence. speeding is an absolute liability offence without the mens rhea element.
There is fairly robust evidence that prevailing natural speed of traffic is safest and limits that aren't appropriate for the road often reduce safety, as it is the speed differential that's dangerous, not so much the absolute number.
If you set limits too low for driving conditions, you in fact endanger people by policy, instead of helping. It's a valid and commonly raised defence against speeding in many states.
Reckless driving is distinct from excessive speeding all, probably best not to mix up two very different things.
Reckless charge can happen at any speed, even 1km/hr, but it does require proof of intent, and is a strict liability offence. speeding is an absolute liability offence without the mens rhea element.
[deleted]
It's not even close to the worst place to live. That's not the point.
The thing that makes it the worst is that it is superficially desirable. It's like refined sugar, a poison that rots your teeth and causes dozens of health problems but tastes fantastic and is marketed heavily to children.
Only a lunatic or an idiot would want to emulate North Korea but many sane intelligent and well-meaning people want to emulate Singapore. That's what makes it so horrible. It's a shining beacon of totalitarianism that advertises that wonderful things can be purchased at the cost of human rights.
I would rather live, pragmatically, in Singapore than many other countries, but if I were there I'd be fully aware that it's a road to hell.
The runner up for this designation is probably Dubai, which is even more of a two-tier Neo-feudal slave state with third world style corruption and only a superficial rule of law.