6 ms·

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

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

muglug 11y ago

Interesting theory. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support that assertion?

emodendroket 11y ago
"The people responsible for suppressing speech said so."
- rsanders 11y ago
  And nobody dissented!
tootie 11y ago
It worked for South Korea and Taiwan. They were both ruled by strongmen on the fence between dictatorship and autoritarian democracy. Park Chung-hee industrialized S Korea in 20 years by ruling with a rubber-stamp parliament and a disregard for human rights. The country emerged stronger and gave way to a true democracy with 20 years of his death.
- emodendroket 11y ago
  The trouble is that that doesn't prove that similar increases in prosperity could not have occurred without widespread human rights abuses.
  - xbmcuser 11y ago
    USA is built on human Rights abuses first of native Americans then African Americans today you might talk about how free speech got USa where it is. But that is not true is it if you look at your history same is for most of the western world. Today US consumerism is built on human rights abuses of people in other countries but free speech whatever. Forget people of other countries many of your local goverments and corporations are being run on human rights abuses of people of color and Hispanics. Either by incarceration or being used almost like slave labor in your large farms.

badpenny 11y ago

Why?

ethbro 11y ago
Hopefully OP will elaborate on his thinking, but I'd hazard the thoughts were something along the lines of "sectarian violence in Iraq needs to be controlled to let it become a modern country." I.e. democracy is a fairly terrible vehicle for progressive change, as by definition you're going to be fighting against inherent conservativism (both terms used with social rather than political definitions) in a majority of your population. I know nothing on the history of Singapore, but /hazardGuess. (Whether or not you agree with that perspective is a valid question, ofc)
- coldtea 11y ago
  The problem with Iraq wasn't "democracy" but colonialism (which created a faux country out of nowhere with problematic arbitrary and non-historical borders) and invasion.
  - ethbro 11y ago
    Iraq has a lot of problems. Historical and modern. And you never really commented on the original point: (given Iraq's, or any other similar state's, current state and status) is democracy and free speech the quickest path towards a more modern state?
    - coldtea 11y ago
      I don't think the citizens of a state are pawns or little children, so that we can ask "what restrictions on them would be the quickest path towards a more modern state". That's the "You can't handle the truth" approach, which I abhor. Now, if (for the purposes of discussion) say that we value having a "modern state" (which is vague in itself) over freedom, democracy, free expression, etc, then, OK, what you write might be a quicker path to it. And Iraq, Libya, etc was indeed more stable under their previous regimes than they are now (of course for those, foreign interests have a lot to gain if they are unstable, and will "help" them be unstable by playing all sides against each other). It also raises the question what kind of "modern state" would that be, that was created with restrictions in democracy and free speech? Historically people have shown (expressed but also proved with their actions) that they can value freedom (as they see it) over convenience and even over their lives (from Spartacus to numerous examples to many to mention). If for a state the kind of people want to be established there needs to be tension and people fighting over the outcome they want, then so be it (even if the final positive outcome is not guaranteed). Just like France had to have the bloody revolution to become a modern state, the US had to have a revolution and a civil war, etc.

edc117 11y ago

Explain please? I don't know much of the history of that area.

crdb 11y ago
Two reasons are generally put forward. The argument put forward by Lee Kuan Yew (RIP) for exiling communists was that Maoist China was aggressively attempting to expand into the region. For example, see the Hong Kong bombing campaign of 1967 [1]. According to, amongst others, "The Singapore Story" [2], he was initially contacted by the Communists to represent them as a "moderate" leftist. His manoeuvering to win the 1959 election (scaring many businesses away to KL, thinking communism had won) and kick them out relatively bloodlessly thereafter has become legendary in Singapore, and is I think unparalleled anywhere else in the world. Part of winning included controlling the press and winning the PR battle. Whether it was justified depends on your stance on communism (and therefore if you consider the country to have been at war, suspending individual rights). The second is that the island is racially very diverse, with a majority Chinese when both neighbours - who were also aggressive at the time - were of a different race and religion. Independence came a couple years too early due to Malaysian worries that LKY was not cooperating with their policies (Singapore was openly advocating racial equality amongst other things, against the pro-Malay discriminative policies from KL). Still in the 1960s, there was an explosion of anti-Chinese minority riots in neighbouring countries which involved some lynchings, and some Chinese had the idea of doing the same to Malays in Singapore (e.g. [3]). LKY's response was prompt: he pushed for the Chinese rioters to be made an example of. Restrictions on hate speech grew from a need to quell these tensions. There were no more race riots until the recent incident where a drunk construction worker was run over by a bus and the mob got angry. It's important to view his actions not as if you lived in the prosperous United States, surrounded by a large ocean and coming out victorious from the largest war known to mankind but as the leader of a tiny island surrounded by enemies big and small, open and insidious. I ask his critics what they would have done differently; I personally agree with those who consider LKY one of the greatest politicians that ever lived, and I admire the Singaporeans for electing him year after year. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_1967_Leftist_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_1967_Leftist_riots: "Bomb disposal experts from the police and the British military defused as many as 8,000 home-made bombs. Statistics showed that one in every eight bombs was genuine." [2] http://www.amazon.com/The-Singapore-Story-Memoirs-Kuan/dp/0130208035 http://www.amazon.com/The-Singapore-Story-Memoirs-Kuan/dp/01... - a worthy read if you love history, but if you are short on time, read "From Third World to First" instead. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_race_riots_in_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_race_riots_in_Singapore

rmxt 11y ago

I don't think that this comment was meant to signal approval of the strict/oppressive speech and press rights in Singapore, but it unfortunately reads as such. If I am misinterpreting your comment, how do you reconcile the apparent "if and only if" relationship you're positing, with countries like South Africa, Czech Republic, Slovakia, etc., that while not strictly third world, have seen increasing economic successes come in conjunction with increasingly free policies over the past 30 years? Superficially, Singapore appears to be the exception and not the rule: Myanmar, Indonesia, Philippines all have seen greater growth as liberalization progresses, as well.

irixusr 11y ago

It's an old argument. A statist (a polite word for fascist) regime can quickly correct obvious inefficiencies leading to a quick and easy boost in productivity. Hayek argues that the jolt is temporary and, in so far that nothing creative seems to come out from Singapore, he seems be at least partially correct. The question is, however, if this is a regime we'd like to live in. A regime where dissent is closely regulated and suppressed (including through canning). A friend's father, formerly an editor of the WSJ, is banned from Singapore for writing an article critical of the boss. I don't think it's a coincidence that Silicon Valley is in CA and has attracted millions throughout the world, to program. People take risks and failure is a badge of honor - not a stain on your family's honor. Meanwhile Singapore has someone who was, according to his ex-adviser, a great mathematician/programer. But then he joined the consultant/political class.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]