I think what PeachPlum is saying is that the words "the outcomes are comparable" has already injected an interpretation into the data, which, if not revealed in the article, is difficult to agree with.
I'm not saying I agree with it. But at the same time I think that as long as it is not abused (to be addressed below), it is intended to prevent the new class of "independent journalists" from writing baseless stories without getting their facts right.
> In my view it's really self evident that such a law is rife for abuse if a site doesn't toe the governments line.
Exactly. Contrary to what many may think, if or when the government does begin to abuse this right, I can assure you that we, the citizens, will be up in arms and take them to task.
I don't want to engage in a long-winded argument about issues irrelevant to my point that I was trying to make in the first place, but it seems that somehow you had a lousy trip.
>I did meet some Indians who were born in Singapore - but alas - had never been to India, and appeared to be basically culturally relegated to a sort of mid level service sector niche. It seemed to me that they'd never built up the courage or economic platform to leave.
Are you saying that all Indians in Singapore are working in mid-level service sectors? Is that really what you're saying?
> Sitting in the airport departure lounge, waiting to fly out, a state-sponsored television channel blared feel-good pro-state propaganda to weary travelers. Suddenly, the national anthem came on. Interspersed with its antiquated, politically-populist, Malay-pattois verbiage were smoothly integrated, carefully contrived scenes of the Singaporean miracle: a multicultural table of youth happily consuming artificial foods, a laughing young man in uniform (doing his compulsory military service), and a couple of friendly, similing police. That was just the icing on the cake.
I'm sorry you don't feel the same way about Singapore. I wouldn't expect you to. Yet patriotism exists in every country at different levels, and if you're saying that this is propaganda, then I have nothing else left to add, because to each, his own.
Oh, but I would like to add that while there are many people like yourself who can seem to turn every good into a bad, there are, thankfully, a good number of people who are more perceptive.
Okay, this is kind of off-topic to the main gist of the article, but I'm a Singaporean living in Singapore, and I believe that the article is rather mischievous (or the author genuinely does not know/bother to know the facts).
First of all, there is no such thing as a requirement for a blogging licence. I can blog, my friends can blog - and we all don't have to get a blogging licence. It is irresponsible, given that the author claims to have "read an article", that he decided to summarise it in two words - a "blogging license". This shows that either he doesn't understand it, or he is deliberately trying to mislead people.
Next, I'm tired of people saying that free speech is limited in Singapore. It is not. There are rules in place to prevent over-zealous extremists (of any kind or nature). I urge anyone who feels otherwise to take a look at Singapore's short national history - about mass inter-racial riots that caused massive turmoil in the country. This is why the laws have been enacted. These laws simply say that we aren't allowed to publicly denounce another religion, or another race. And before you start jumping up and down saying "that's limiting my freedom to speak!", let me clarify. It's not what you think. It's not that I can't complain or even speak badly about someone else's race or religion in public. I can. But the moment I start shouting these insults, that's when the authorities would take action against me. It's only civilised, and the government has formalised this civility. On one hand, people ignorant to historical events in Singapore can simply surmise that they are tools by the government to inhibit freedom of speech. On the other hand, however, and this is what I personally feel, these laws exist to keep the peace. Think about it. Singapore is a small island filled with people of different races and religions. Yet we don't have religious wars and we certainly don't have racial riots.
And finally, the claim of, "I suspect at some point the Singapore intelligence agency may have hacked into my email while I was there (another IP was registering on my Gmail account). Also I believe I was interviewed by a Singaporean spy." I seriously doubt it. Do you really think that if a highly trained spy wanted to covertly interview you, a technical writer and web developer, that you would know? And if they did want you to know, you would have known that you're being interviewed. I doubt (and here I'm assuming) that spending hours reading conspiracy theories online would make one an expert in counter-intelligence. Again, like what I said, this ill-constructed idea that the author has is probably due to the lack of understanding of the so-called "blogging license". And again, I repeat: one DOES NOT require a licence to blog.
Over the last couple of years, I've seen an increase in the number of people (mostly foreigners) writing articles about Singapore, saying that citizens' liberties are curtailed and limited. Again, as a citizen, this isn't true. Just like how Americans value their "freedoms", sometimes till the point of absurdity (absurd at least to foreigners like myself, and with regards to "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"), we Singaporeans value the peace and harmony within our tiny island-state. We put this, sometimes, even above our own personal liberty - like the freedom to shout racist remarks in a coffeeshop. Is that wrong? Only someone who has seen the bloody effects of racial and religious unrest would be qualified to answer the question.