[josai]

I am sick of seeing "free speech" treated almost as religious dogma, as if it is axiomatically good. It's not - it's just a theory that unrestricted free speech will lead to a better society. Frankly, I don't think that is anywhere near proven yet (nor do I think even democracy has been "proven" to work long-term).

I actually like that there's lots of little experiments going on, trying any number of positions on all the little dials of society. Time will tell which ones work.

[drzaiusapelord]

Its not just free speech (which ironically takes care of other issues as it allows proper multi-party politics and being able to 'talk to power' without reprisal).

Its also LEO abuse because their system allows unlimited detention without charge. Homosexual rights are non-existant: Prime Minster Lee Hsien Loong has spoken dismissively of the challenges to article 377A: “Why is that law on the books? Because it’s always been there and I just think we leave it. I think that’s the way Singapore will be for a long time.”

If that wasn't bad enough:

Singapore’s Media Development Authority issued a regulation effective on June 1 that banned major news websites available in Singapore from “advocating homosexuality or lesbianism.”

All Foreign domestic workers are excluded from the Employment Act, which provides employment protections.

Its easy to sit here on your expensive computer and fast internet connection in a Western country and pretend living under a regime like this is wonderful. You're not a gay man being jailed for loving your partner or a poor Philipino being beaten by his employer because he cant work 18 hour shifts everyday. Apparently, curtailing speech didn't fix these issues, so why are you advocating for it?

>I actually like that there's lots of little experiments going on,

We've gone down this path a million times. Its not surprising that it brings the same results as before.

[Mifuyuu]

Oh lordy. I'm currently in the country living under this "regime" and am quite amused by your description. I can honestly tell you that the government doesn't go round busting into people's houses trying to catch gay men loving their partners. WRT the domestic workers, (btw, you got the gender wrong- they tend to be females) and there are severe punishments for abusing them. I've also noted occasional reports in the news about employers being jailed and such.

[rburhum]

I've heard this so many times from people that live in a place where one of this "little experiments" is not happening.

It is easy to be an anarchist or communist when you dont have to live in such a place.

[josai]

I've lived and worked extensively in singapore, thailand and china, all with speech controls. They all have their pros and cons and I'd be hard pressed to categorically state they're better or worse than my home country of Australia.

> you dont have to live in such a place

True, and neither do they. Singapore's a first world country; its citizens can settle elsewhere with relative ease. And yet they don't. I wonder why?

And just to turn your rhetorical device against you, what I've heard "so many times" is these self-righteous rants by people who have never even visited the place they're criticising, but they're oh so sure they're right anyway. And for what it's worth, the USA is an experiment too, and from an outsider's perspective I'm not sure it's working out too well.

[rburhum]

> And just to turn your rhetorical device against you, what I've heard "so many times" is these self-righteous rants by people who have never even visited the place they're criticising, but they're oh so sure they're right anyway. And for what it's worth, the USA is an experiment too, and from an outsider's perspective I'm not sure it's working out too well.

Just as an FYI, not "rethoric" from my side. I was born and raised in a country that went through a hell hole of super inflation and constant bombs going off from a "marxist" terrorist group known as the Shining Path. The "president" that "fixed" this situation was really a dictator that did not pay attention to human rights or democratic due process. The terrorist group got destroyed and "order" was brought into place at the expense of free speech and true democracy. Oh yeah, and he put a bomb in my dad's car because he disagreed with his political views. Those were the two first decades of my life.

So I kind of know what I am talking about.

If Australia was truly going through free-speech "problems" - I am sure you would not be so easy to refer to these "experiments"

[josai]

I'm sorry to hear about your experiences, I mean that. But I don't see how that has much to do with what we're talking about.

I wish you'd step back from your personal trauma and look at the big picture. You say this "terrorist" group caused the rise of a dictator and the loss of free speech and democracy. Why didn't free speech and democracy stop such instability in the first place, if they're such a panacea like you seem to think? Because that's exactly what I'm talking about - the ingredients of a stable, wealthy, secure and fulfilling society.

Of course, the irony is that that would have never happened in Singapore.

[rburhum]

You dont think it is presumptious of you to think you can somehow dissect a situation in an entire region (South America) without clearly any historical knowledge that can give you meaningful context? I say this because your question "Why didnt free speech and democracy stop such instability in the first place?" show a clear misunderstanding/lack of knowledge and tremendous oversimplification of Cold War era politics, neo-colonialism, caudillism, Spanish feudalism and decentralisation of power. Breaking it down to a simple explanation of "is free speech and democracy good and if such why didnt it help here?" is clearly silly at best.

[josai]

Your comment was also a ridiculous over-simplification. My reply was a bit facetious, which was probably silly of me. But whatever. We both fail at arguing; I have not influenced you nor have you influenced me.

Anyway, it appears that I'm now treading on people's toes so that's enough from me.

[speeder]

Except people in Singapore stated they like it there.

And I considered moving to Singapore a couple times, if I get ever invited for a job there, I would promptly accept.

I don't agree with lots of their laws, but I must recognize that it works. (Singapore is clean, safe, has good business freedom, the government does not tolerate racism and religious hate, and the city has a very interesting functional design).

[perfTerm]

Sure the world you would step into when you went to Singapore would be great and fine. However if you consider the fact that Singapore has the highest gini coefficient (measures wealth inequality) [0] then the inability to speak freely might be pretty awful for the peoples at the bottom. It's easy to gloss over the weakest links in our societies (we sure do it well here in America, and probably almost everywhere) but you really have to remember that your Singapore isn't most people from Singapores Singapore and therefore it only seems fair to include a postfix: I don't agree with many of Singapore's laws but it works for me.

[0] - http://thehearttruths.com/2013/02/21/singapore-has-the-highe...

[toni]

> Except people in Singapore stated they like it there.

In a country where you are not allowed to openly criticize the ruling power, how can you even measure what people of Singapore really like?

[speeder]

Even in countries with heavy censorship, you can tell if large groups are unhappy, they might state they are happy with their mouths, but body language, and general behaviour will show otherwise.

Also, problematic countries also frequently have some dissenters, and people that managed to flee and speak against it while outside it.

Singapore don't forbid you to leave, and all people I ever talked that went to Singapore, or lived in Singapore but where outside Singapore, mostly only had praise for the country.

[ta86868]

Looking at Grandparent's link, they also execute drug traffickers, which is kind of excessive, IMO.

And "better society" isn't the only reason to believe in "free speech". Another reason is the moral principle that one should not be imprisoned for a political opinion.

[apetresc]

Not only do they execute drug traffickers, they have a very loose definition of what "trafficking" means.

If you are in possession of at least 500g of marijuana, you are BY DEFINITION considered to be trafficking it, regardless of intent. This has a mandatory death sentence. And here's the best part: the definition of possession is:

    any person who is proved to have had in his possession or custody or under his control —
        (a) anything containing a controlled drug;
        (b) the keys of anything containing a controlled drug;
        (c) the keys of any place or premises or any part thereof in which a controlled drug is found; or
        (d) a document of title relating to a controlled drug or any other document intended for the delivery of a controlled drug,
    shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have had that drug in his possession.

So simply having the keys to an apartment that contains 500g of weed is enough to get you executed in Singapore, theoretically.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Singapore...)

[harperlee]

It's a good indirect way to get rid of someone. Just put drugs on their apartment and call the cops.

[speeder]

I am from Brazil, and although I am against the drug war, I do believe that the sort of drug traffickers they execute, are not really a problem in being executed.

For example Indonesia recently executed two brazillians, and although our president keeps complaining, cut relations with Indonesia, and whatnot, the population is HAPPY they executed those two scumbags, we just wish more scumbags would make the same mistake and get executed too.

You might wonder, why is that? It is because in Brazil we have a full blown civil war going because of drug traffickers, the drug traffickers here frequently have very heavy weapons (rocket launchers, grenade launchers, mortars, anti-material fixed machineguns and rifles, they even tried to buy some small missiles once in the international black market), and are perfectly willing to use it (so our government must hand our cops military gear, literally, to handle, war-style combat, with armoured vehicles, helicopters and infantary trading heavy fire is not uncommon, and in some cities we have more absolute deaths by gunfire than the whole Iraq summed per day).

[javajosh]

But you need free speech to conceive of, prepare for, and then execute an experiment. If you limit speech, then you limit the kinds of experiments you can even talk about, let alone run.