[fatcat500]

> Goldman Sachs partners had something to say about this law

Don't you think it's absurd that an investment bank has influence over a country's social policy? For all the cheerleading we do about democracy, we also don't seem to care that behemoth US companies exert their influence over other countries, thus diluting the value of a citizen's vote. No one is concerned that there is no wall of separation between business and politics.

[tpmx]

For all the cheerleading we do about democracy

Singapore isn't really that democratic though. Somehow it kind of works for them.

https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/202...

Singapore’s parliamentary political system has been dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and the family of current prime minister Lee Hsien Loong since 1959. The electoral and legal framework that the PAP has constructed allows for some political pluralism, but it constrains the growth of opposition parties and limits freedoms of expression, assembly, and association.

[MichaelCollins]

The PAP has always been quasi-fascist (if not overtly so.) They hardly even hide it, their iconography is derived from British Union of Fascists.

[nullhack]

Yes, I'm always curious who "we" and "our" means in these cases...

As a tangent, the USA is a Democratic Republic, and yet all I ever hear is threats to "Our Democracy" I never hear about threats to "Our Republic"

[nextaccountic]

That's because most threats to democracy would shift it to being an autocratic, dictatorial republic, rather than say a monarchy

[anon84873628]

Or to put another way, the risk is in the "Republic" aspects like the Senate and Electoral College overwhelming the "Democracy" aspects like proportional representation and popular vote.

[TheCoelacanth]

No, "republic" simply means that governance is a public matter, not the private concern of a sovereign. It has more to do with the government's theory of legitimacy than how it is actually governed.

The UK is non-republican because it's governed by Her Majesty's Government, but democratic because the actual power to choose the government belongs to the common people.

The US is republican because the government is constituted by We The People. If it became non-democratic, it would likely remain republican because changing a government's theory of legitimacy is harder than changing how the government actually works.

[8note]

Your thinking of "union" not "republic"

You stop having a republic when rulers start picking their replacements. You'd lose the republicanism if say, Joe Biden appointed Hunter Biden to be the next president or if it became tradition that the next Trump always gets voted in as president.

Things like democracy and the electoral college tend to protect republicanism, but both can exist without maintaining the republic

[nullhack]

Is there a parallel risk of "Democracy" overwhelming the "Republic" aspects of our Democracy*?

[bediger4000]

Not in the USA, of course, but philosophers of government have identified this as "tyranny of the majority".

[s1artibartfast]

Threats to our republic are filed under states rights, a fundamental construct of a republic.

This itself is viewed as a threat to our democracy by those who either think it should not be a republic or are ignorant of the fact it was intended to be. For reference, see debates about a non proportional senate and the power of minority population electoral power.

[Per_Bothner]

Many republics (including Singapore) do not have "states", so clearly "states rights" is not "a fundamental construct of a republic".

Nobody sane has ever cared about "states' rights" consistently - it's a silly concerpt. It was invented as part of the Lost Cause mythology to justify secession. (Fugitive slave laws, which are pretty antithetical to 'states rights," were very much something the antebellum South pushed for.)

[nullhack]

The distinction is "threat to any government" vs "threats to OUR government"

Sure, ANY Republic does not rely on States, as evidenced by Singapore. But OURS (if you are also a USA citizen) does.

[s1artibartfast]

you are correct that I should have stated "our republic" not all republics.

That said, the idea that "states rights" originated after the civil war is absurd on face vale. Powers and autonomy left to the states are evident in our founding documentation, and obviously present in the lead up to the civil war as well.

The idea that a centralized government leaves no powers to the state and local level is a silly concept and counterfactual. It is obvious in the interstate commerce clause and many other parts of the constitution.

[Per_Bothner]

That the US started out as a federation of independent states is a given. My point is that "states' rights" as a political-moral philosophy doesn't make much sense, and almost nobody has pushed for states's rights consistently or when it goes against what they otherwise want. One might argue that decisions should be made at the smallest (most local) level that makes sense, but the idea that "state" means "local decision-making" is pretty dubious. Furthermore, "states' rights" as a political rallying cry in the US came after the Civil War and was used to justify segregation.

[SllX]

That’s because they’re the same thing in different languages. I learned the same propaganda as you; the distinction taught to us was basically made up.

[nullhack]

Per google search ".. etymology" demos: the people; -cratia: power, rule; Greek. res: entity, concern; publicus: of the people, public; Latin

"Rule of the People" and "Concern of the People" sound SIMILAR, sure!

Just because a mechanic is concerned for your car, does not mean he owns it... I think it's lazy of you to call this dichotomy "propoganda" without offering any definitions or etymology.

[SllX]

English etymology doesn’t get you there and encourages exactly the kind of distinction without a difference that I’m pointing out.

One is Roman. One is Greek. They describe the same concept, but it’s a concept that has been implemented differently both in their time and in ours: self-government. The forms and institutions are distinguishable as “Roman-style” or “Athenian-style”, but the same is true in 2022 of “American-style” and “French-style” republics.

[nullhack]

Did Google not give me Greek and Latin etymologies?

[colinmhayes]

Republic is a type of democracy. You’re thinking of direct democracy when everyone is talking about the form of government where most adults can vote.

[NoboruWataya]

Singapore is free to enact draconian laws. Expat workers, and the multinational corporations who employ them, are also free to criticise or, ultimately, to leave the country in response to those draconian laws. This would be very bad for Singapore, given the contribution those workers and corporations make to its economy, so Singapore will weigh its desire for draconian laws against its desire for a strong economy and make its own decision.

So many people confuse the freedom to do something with the freedom to do something and force the rest of the world to act as if you didn't do it.

[cercatrova]

There is always influence. One can never separate it and become a truly, wholly non-influenced person, society, or country. Muslim traders in the 1400s spread their religion throughout Southeast Asia because they wanted to influence their customers, and customers converted because they wanted better deals from those who would deem them of a similar faith. That is the same process here. If a country doesn't like such influence, such as Japan with the Dutch, they can ban it.

[ValentineC]

On the flip side of the coin, one of the most vocal opponents to repeal has been the Singapore branch of the Christian American organisation Focus of the Family [1], which counts the current Singapore foreign minister (among other politicians) as one of its patrons [2].

I don't think organisations can avoid foreign influence these days, but it'll be absurd to think that only one side was affected by it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family_Singapore

[2] https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/raising-funds-to-rais...

[cercatrova]

Of course, I don't deny that multiple influences can occur simultaneously. That is indeed the nature of politics.

[emptyparadise]

>such as Japan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition

[cercatrova]

Indeed, just because a country wants to close down does not mean they will be successful at doing so. That is also a part of influence, when influence turns into violence.

[HeyZuess]

Singapore is a giant company, that is how the country is run. Fiscal policy plays a major role in the life of everyone in the country, and that is why the country has made such improvements. Foreign investments are very important to Singapore, and do carry weight on decision making.

There is a trade off in every situation, and I believe that for most Singaporeans they are more focused on getting a HDB and $300K car and living in safe, prosperous environment, thus they allow for this type of interference. Right or wrong, it does work to provide the needs to the people.

[colinmhayes]

Singapore is about as democratic as China for what it’s worth.

[notahacker]

That's... a stretch. China has "reeducation" camps for dissidents and a Great Firewall; Singapore has opposition MPs and overzealous use of libel laws against critics. The two are not particularly alike.

[delta_p_delta_x]

I have heard and seen some stupid takes on Singapore, but this takes the cake.

In the 2020 general elections, the incumbent PAP had its worst showing ever, with ~60% of the votes. There are 5+ other opposition parties that Singaporeans can and do vote for in free and fair elections.

In the PRC, there are no meaningful elections whatsoever.

[seanmcdirmid]

Yes, but Singapore has much stronger rule of law than China, which is why the city state doesn’t fall apart.

[noduerme]

>> we also don't seem to care that behemoth US companies exert their influence over other countries

In the case of United Fruit fomenting military coups all over LatAm, I agree. But in this case we're simply exporting our values through soft power, money and influence. I don't see a problem with it. Some countries outright ban our social media and films - many like Iran or China citing American corporate support for gay rights (which for most conservative dictatorships is a convenient way to redirect popular anger toward an outgroup and to clamp down on free speech).

American values as relate to what you can say and who you can love are better[0] than the values of countries which dictate who can sleep with and arrest people in their beds (e.g. Malaysia). I'm glad our corporations uphold our values overseas. What is particularly offensive is when they don't, when they cave in to the whims of totalitarian governments, e.g. Disney and the NBA kowtowing to China.

Would it be bad if our corporations were going into free democracies and spreading values that align with dictatorship and the abrogation of freedoms? Yes. That's what Chinese companies are doing here.

Good for Goldman, and all other US companies that put pressure on countries they do business with to uphold universal human rights.

[0] I don't just mean morally better, although I do believe in universal rights and ethics. I mean that American-style personal liberty has outcompeted other systems in the marketplace of ideas, in economics and development, and is a more fit model for generating broad societal wealth than totalitarianism is. This explains why it's both utilitarian for Goldman to support LGBTQ rights, and for Singapore to agree to those terms from foreign companies.

[worik]

> But in this case we're simply exporting our values through soft power, money and influence

What if that shoe was on the other foot?

If people would not trade with USA because of racism?

If people would not trade with USA because of treatment if indigenous peoples? (Genocide, use plain words for that one)

The treatment of poor people? Making them live in the streets.

The treatment of poor people, leaving them to die in agony of preventable diseases?

Because of representation and exploitation of sexuality in commerce? Especially of women?

The treatment of asylum seekers and refugees?

The USA is no shining light on the hill spreading goodness with soft power. It is a huge imperialistic monster spreading its tentacles and world view with a huge military. Soft power (Goldman Sachs included) is under that military umbrella.

[jonnybgood]

> If people would not trade with USA because of racism?

The US no longer has institutionalized racism and is illegal. Most of the racism of today is of a different nature, primarily among particular groups of individuals.

> If people would not trade with USA because of treatment if indigenous peoples? (Genocide, use plain words for that one)

There is no longer an attempted genocide of Native Americans occurring. But if you want to talk about Native land rights, reservations, etc. then that is something worth talking about.

> The treatment of poor people? Making them live in the streets.

> The treatment of poor people, leaving them to die in agony of preventable diseases?

Don't know what you're getting at with this. Are you implying the US is the only country that has homelessness? Homelessness is a problem in just about everywhere. You're going to have to elaborate on the 'leaving them to die in agony'.

> Because of representation and exploitation of sexuality in commerce? Especially of women?

You're going to have to elaborate and give some examples. This seems like a pretty subjective topic.

> The treatment of asylum seekers and refugees?

Again, elaborate. The US accepts a huge number asylum seekers and refugees. More than most countries.

[noduerme]

>> If people would not trade with USA because of racism?

Are you trying to make a consistent argument that no one should use trade to pressure other countries to change policies they disagree with?

So you're okay with buying goods made by Israeli companies in the West Bank, right? And buying Russian oil? How about sneakers made by Uighur slaves in Chinese concentration camps? How about buying blood diamonds? Should companies not pressure countries they do business with to prevent child labor, or enforce minimal worker safety regulations?

If people didn't trade with us because our policies were abhorrent to them, then maybe our policies are abhorrent and that would put pressure on us to stop those policies, which would be good. For example, if Europe passed a law banning the import of goods made in US for-profit prisons, that would be good.

This tired argument that "US is evil, everything it does must be bad" is absurd if you have any knowledge of what goes on in the rest of the world. The US can be flawed without making it as flawed as a country that hangs homosexuals from cranes (Iran), or as flawed as one that prohibits all forms of speech against the government (China, Vietnam, Russia, and on, and on).

So if you don't think it's a problem to trade with anyone, you aren't really standing up for the moral position you claim to hold against the US.

[worik]

My point, which you missed, is that the USA is one of the bad ones not one of the good ones.

I am not sure there are any good ones, a tangential point.

This in the context of:

> But in this case we're simply exporting our values through soft power, money and influence

To Singapore. There are values from Singapore that the USA could do with, so the fact that Goldman Sachs gets to tell Singapore what laws to make - what if that shoe was on the other foot? What of "your values" need up dating - but wait. Never mind soft power. The USA has the Pacific Fleet (and another half dozen fleets) so fuck you and you values.

[noduerme]

>> I am not sure there are any good ones, a tangential point.

I agree, but it's not tangential at all. In fact, it is the whole point. As Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

There are plenty of things which are not perfect, but are preferable to the other options. You might consider what position Singapore or the Philippines would be in without the US Navy sailing regularly through the South China Sea. Most likely they would be territories or dependencies of China. If Chinese Communist Party values are something you prefer to American values, then feel free to enumerate which, exactly, make it a system you would prefer to live under. (And note that this is a freedom you wouldn't have if you were posting on a Chinese message board).

Other countries can, and do, influence US policy as well as culture, in positive ways. This is also for the good. It is precisely why there is a powerful Pacific Fleet composed of people from over 100 nationalities under the US flag. When and if the Han empire begins to utilize the full capabilities of all its citizens by granting them freedom of thought, speech and movement, perhaps it will outcompete the US - other ethno-nationalist states with wise leaders have done so in the past. Even Singapore has done a fairly remarkable job of balancing speech and numerous ethnicities. Certainly better than the larger, equally strategic and yet doomed UAE.

But which values exactly do you wish to see imposed on the US which actually are practiced somewhere, and where are they practiced? That's a more interesting and fertile ground for discussion than simply "you're the bad guys"... and again, the bad guys in world history don't normally ask or care, whereas this is an intense and open topic of public debate in the US.

[fatcat500]

What you're saying is effectively: "But we're right and they're wrong, so I don't care."

Everyone thinks they're right about what they believe in, especially moral beliefs. The purpose of political systems is to provide a non-violent, transparent medium by which disagreements can be resolved.

In public health, the protocol is to maximize trust in the people you are serving. For example, if a female doctor is turned away by a sick misogynist, the correct reaction is to say, "Ok, let me find you a male doctor." The incorrect reaction is to become offended and attempt to use public health as a political chess piece to "make them more inclusive."

Global trade cannot flourish if every business attempts to install the moral values of its stakeholders in whatever country they're doing business in. There has to exist a level of professionalism where business people understand that they are not there to judge or influence other peoples and their governments.

[saghm]

> In public health, the protocol is to maximize trust in the people you are serving. For example, if a female doctor is turned away by a sick misogynist, the correct reaction is to say, "Ok, let me find you a male doctor." The incorrect reaction is to become offended and attempt to use public health as a political chess piece to "make them more inclusive."

People trying to demand that they be provided doctors who fit their political views would be the ones turning it into a chess piece IMO; you can't simultaneously demand that the public health system accommodate your non-public health related concerns while complaining that the public health system is now dealing with areas outside their purview.

[andsoitis]

What about all the gay people in Singapore? Do they not deserve to live full lives and be happy?

[fatcat500]

Of course I want the gay people in Singapore to flourish. That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that it is illegitimate for private companies to use their vast wealth to influence the affairs of a comparatively poorer country.

Western countries colonized entire continents with force and violence. Now we're doing it again, ideologically, with business and geopolitics.

[noduerme]

So a private company has to do business in Singapore - and isn't allowed to complain if the Singaporean government restricts the rights of its own employees? They're just supposed to shut up and take whatever insane dictat exists in whatever jurisdiction they do business with? Why? If they're powerful enough to move the needle by threatening to withdraw from the country, then good for them! It's not that "whatever I like" is right, it's that there are universal human rights, and guess what, if enough stakeholders in these companies believe that no one should be doing business in countries or states that don't respect those rights, that's a good thing for the world.

[jonnybgood]

Who should influence the affairs of a country? Take Russia now as an example. Should western countries stop Russia? Do you think western companies who pulled out of Russia are morally reprehensible because they were attempting to influence with business?

[noduerme]

Yeah, the people who draw equivalence between US companies pulling out of Russia and Russia attempting to influence US elections are morally bankrupt and can't see that one of these things is trying to stop a war of aggression, or at least punish the murder of civilians. To even pretend not to be able to make that distinction is repugnant.

[tzs]

Singapore is not a comparatively poorer country [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Singapore

[fatcat500]

The GDP of Singapore is around $340 billion.

Goldman Sachs manages $2.5 trillion dollars worth of assets.

[andsoitis]

Your last two paragraphs don’t seem aligned with your first paragraph.

[nullhack]

"If Gay patients are uncomfortable with Bigoted doctors, these patients deserve Compassionate doctors" is, I believe, a better summary of their comment.