The damage done by scammers is enormous. Families losing their life’s savings. Quite often these scams are perpetrated on less sophisticated people so the economic damage to them is even more devastating.
It’s not like the government woke up one day and started to cane scammers. There have been years of educational programs in different languages. A campaign with special focus on protecting the elderly. Every time you transfer money with your online banking app you get a warning about scammers. They instituted an SMS registry that results in unknown numbers (for instance pretending to be your bank) showing up as “LIKELY SCAM” on your phone. That hasn’t eradicated the problem, so now the punishment goes up.
Imagine a government that actually protects its citizens…
My mom just lost about fifteen thousand dollars. The sad part is, she knew full well, for years now, if you hear a certain accent from a cold call, just hang up the phone. She received calls almost every day since she still needs a landline to talk to family, so she is very well versed in avoiding them.
So for her to fall for a scam has us worried, it might be a sign of neurodegenerative disease. She went from sharp as a tack when it came to ignoring scammers, to falling into it. I'm sure this is a very common theme. These parasites prey on the elderly losing their mental acuity
What would actually help the scammed families would be getting the lost resources back, at least partially. I realize that it may be hard, for the resources may have been squandered.
Scamming would be much less prevalent if money were trackable, scam transactions would be possible to roll back, yes, transitively, from all the downstream users. The downstream users would then be keenly interested in the provenance of the money they're being paid. Ironically, blockchain-based currencies are perfectly trackable (at least in theory; mixers make it harder). Sadly, this has a ton of obvious privacy implications.
I've been in banking for quite some time of my life and hands down, there is no country in the world that makes bankers with let's say questionable skills in risk assessment and decision making more afraid. Millions in fines, maybe more? Zero fucks given. Messing with regulators in Singapore? Not worth it. Wouldn't be surprised if they send or have sent people out to tell the somewhat gory stories of the canings in Singapore.
Personally, I don't believe in preventive effects of draconian punishment, but I also don't believe in cokeheads. Being a cokehead in Singapore means risking facing the mandatory death sentence for posession of more than 30g of cocaine, which depending on the habit is a months supply max for some.
>depending on the habit is a months supply max for some
People with substance abuse problems are generally the "get more every day or two" type not the "have a month's supply on hand" type.
And I really believe more in corporal punishment for a lot of things than the maze of fines, legal costs, and probation which really seems more like complicated inconvenience.
For drunk driving, sexual assault, and grand theft the appropriate punishment for the first offense is a public beating where they stop half way through and give you a chance to admit guilt and apologize on camera or they keep going. It would be particularly good for any fraud that nets you, say over a million dollars. Only for the kinds of crimes that have significant victims.
I would respectfully disagree. While Singapore likes to “kill the chicken to teach the monkey” they absolutely are examples of kid gloves.
The recent corruption case of a Minister taking gifts of hundreds of thousands resulted in a few months custodial sentence for the Minister and nothing for the rich “donor”.
Massive money laundering scam? Stiff punishment for the foreigners and kid gloves for the local lawyers and bankers who facilitated it all.
Singaporeans constantly complain about how being rich in Singapore protects from actual punishment.
Singapore is an odd country. The only country, to my knowledge, that had independence thrust upon it without its consent. Extremely prosperous compared to its neighbors. An autocratic, single party state where the government is so popular that they need to rig their elections against themselves to get dissenting voices. One of the most militarized countries (#3 by military spending per capita) in the world, yet their military has barely been used.
What would you even call their socioeconomic system? They're not exactly doing neoliberal capitalism, their government is far too involved for that. They're not socialist, they've got free enterprise galore. The autocracy+militarization+heavily meddled with big business thing most resembles fascist states, but without the typical racist scapegoating (on the contrary, they've put a frankly inordinate amount of effort into preventing racial infighting).
In most countries "The country also passed a new law earlier this year that would allow the police to control the bank accounts of individuals who they suspect to be scam targets and limit what transactions they can do." would probably set off alarm bells, but it does seem like business as usual in Singapore.
They are famous for having a lot of rules, but the instances where they really go wild are when someone has been particularly egregious.
For the most part it is just insanely materialistic as the main downside.
Most of the "harsh" rules make a tremendous amount of sense when you actually go there. Yeah, gum and spitting are illegal, and that is a good thing in a city as crowded as that with a significant population from countries where spitting is customary. Take an overnight train in China, and you will come to discover that you too appreciate a place where people can't just hork one up at will.
To put it into perspective, SG is one of the rare tier 1 cities where you can get a Michelin meal from a street vendor (literally), after engaging the services of a prostitute, and drinking a beer in public. It isn't nearly as uptight as an HOA.
>that they need to rig their elections against themselves to get dissenting voices
I don't believe this is true. If you're talking about Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, they are consolation prizes given to best losers, and there are many things they cannot vote on. Moreover, the ruling party almost never lifts the party whip, i.e. members of the party CANNOT vote against the party line (without being kicked out of the party, which results in them being kicked out of parliament). In other words, since the ruling party already has a majority, any opposing votes literally do not matter.
If you aren't talking about the NCMP scheme, then I do not know what you're talking about, as the ruling party does institute policies that are beneficial for the incumbent party.
If you haven't, go read "The Singapore Story" https://annas-archive.org/md5/6578558e0416e264a39da0448003ec... If you're bored, skip to the Japanese invasion Chapter and then read on. Many unique things happened in Singapore to make Singapore, Singapore.
The reason you find it odd is because you really can't find another country that the citizen have such a high trust towards the government and let the government do (almost) anything they wanted, yet the government doesn't abuse this power (mostly, at least) and continue focus on long term benefits of the country (rather than short term gains because the political party need to survive the next election in few years time)
> One of the most militarized countries (#3 by military spending per capita) in the world, yet their military has barely been used.
Ther reason is quite simple: Singapore is a very small country and it is very easily to be invaded. The high military spending is more of a deterent.
> What would you even call their socioeconomic system?
It is very much a free market capitalism with some state intervention, similar to many other countries. If anything, I would say Singapore is more free market than many western countries due to the fact that the government is very pro-business as the country is heavily rely on foreign businesses to survive.
> What would you even call their socioeconomic system?
China economically functions similarly to Singapore, with long documented connections and explicit emulation. In 1978, Deng Xiaoping already began this and hundreds of thousands of Chinese officials and leaders were trained there and in industrial parks with the explicit goal of knowledge sharing with the dream of "planting 1000 Singapores". [0, 1, 2, 3]
> fascist states, but without the typical racist scapegoating
Tangential, but Hitler added racism; Mussolini, Salazar, Franco/de Rivera (who used large Arab and Berber forces fighting the Republicans in Spain) etc. had none of that (until Hitler forced Mussolini's hand in 1938). Brazilian integralists and many other fascisms also weren't racially based.
I'm not defending any of those people. Mussolini was a monster who used gas in Ethiopia and many other things, yes. But that wasn't the topic. Fascist Italy didn't do "racist scapegoating" and blame internal problems on people of other races.
Then deliver the news and have constructive discussions.
For what it's worth is well accepted among most fascism historians that racism, at least in the sense of adopting racial laws and such came late, and mostly as a byproduct of the German alliance.
As for what did Italy do itself before that, if you're referring to the wars in Africa, that has nothing to do with fascism, and the two biggest colonial powers at the time were both very sane democracies.
That has nothing to do with fascism as you may not be aware but Italy started fighting colonial wars well before WW1 and the other hard on colonialists were all democracies.
And this is why I can't take anyone's fascism definition seriously. Those definitions are contradictory, and include and exclude governments that don't deserve it. Especially when they try to imply that X = fascist = bad guy. If I heard about Umberto Eco one more time!!
No freedom of press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, government owns/operates roughly ⅓ of the economy that features many state monopolies, the PAP maintains a gerrymandered control over the electorate, criticizing the government lands you in court for defamation and conveniently bankrupts can't run for parliament.
Singapore is many things but not none of what you've written.
Singaporeans have insanely high quality of life and high pride in their system and people. They have an immense number of negative freedoms that the average person across the world could only dream of: freedom from violence, freedom from the devastating effects of drug addiction on families and society, freedom from poverty, freedom from corruption, freedom from instability. For the average person looking to raise a family, build a quality life, and just live well, Singapore is the perfect social contract. Don't like it? They have the most powerful or second most powerful passport in the world and can move anywhere else they see fit, yet they see their country as the best place they could be
Hmm, a clean, safe, prosperous country with world class education, top medical facilities, a technocratic highly competent government, reasonable taxes, and a place that people like to come for vacation…I can see how this would offend people
> What would you even call their socioeconomic system? They're not exactly doing neoliberal capitalism, their government is far too involved for that. They're not socialist, they've got free enterprise galore. The autocracy+militarization+heavily meddled with big business thing most resembles fascist states
It's just State Capitalism, isn't it? Like China. A market-based economy with free enterprise, but no illusions of egalitarianism or democracy, enables the state to step in and manage and direct the market with effective regulation. In a democracy the state can manage this for a time, but eventually a private entity or group of entities leverages their power to influence law and co-opt democratic power, so the market starts steering its own regulation and you end up with fascism as a means of population control or a Russia-style cleptocratic oligarchy. We have not yet figured out how to sustain democracy + capitalism, if it's even possible.
I worry that most will see the rise of countries like Singapore and China and the relative decline of the US/EU and conclude that democracy is a failed project all together.
I'm not saying democracy is a failed project all together, but something that has been on my mind a lot recently is that democracy is quite inefficient - where I'm from anyway (New Zealand). We are a small country, with general elections every four years. So most of the decisions our government takes a less bold, and optimized for short term interests and to get the next cycle vote. And when we have had times a government has made plans for a large infrastructure project, a successive government will come in and undo all of that planning.
For example, Auckland, our major economic hub, doesn't even have proper public transportation, and now citizens are battling with issues commuting to and from work.
I think part of Singapore's success has been it's ability to make bold decisions and see it through without worrying about short term election cycles.
China does have illusions of egalitarianism, though. They don't call themselves the "Communist" party without reason. And enterprise, to my understanding, is much, much freer in Singapore than it is in China.
> "The country also passed a new law earlier this year that would allow the police to control the bank accounts of individuals who they suspect to be scam targets and limit what transactions they can do."
This is crazy to me. How far are we willing to go in terms of restricting freedoms for safety?
But this is just part of how Singapore is different than America and Europe. China has even stricter controls in terms of limiting what individuals can do with their bank accounts (you can't transfer money to non-Chinese-citizens at all!).
Western countries put enormous value on personal liberty — America probably the most so, but even EU countries are extremely liberal in a liberty sense compared to historical norms, and even compared to some well-functioning economies today like China and Singapore. It's interesting, since I think the idea of personal liberty is so deeply engrained in many of our consciousnesses that we couldn't conceive of living like that. But... plenty of people do, and they're happy about it.
you can't transfer money to non-Chinese-citizens at all!
that's not true. you just have to document and explain the transfer, if it is a foreign bank account. and if it is a local one then the citizenship of he account holder does not even matter.
Western countries put enormous value on personal liberty
in everyday life the limits on personal liberty in china are hardly noticeable. and they are contrasted with safety even when walking through dark neighborhoods at 3am in the morning.
Plenty of people seem to be quite supportive of the idea that visa holders (ie not citizens), or simply brown people, should NOT be allowed to criticize the standing president, so I don't know that the idea of personal liberty is as strong as I believed it was growing up.
It’s practically a one party state, no? And I’ve heard lots of stories of protesters getting disappeared after the police arrest them. Easy to say these things.
I did indeed have exactly these sorts of things in mind - but I should have spent more time iterating on my comment, the end result possibly being not to post any comment at all, because it didn't end up coming out as intended. I'll refer you to my other reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45818568
They are a one party state, but not for lack of trying. It just turns out that turning a country from a fishing village to a world-class economy in a couple decades buys you a lot of good will from the voters.
a one party state is not the problem. you don't need multiple parties to allow multiple opinions and dissent. all they would need to do is to allow dissenting votes within the party (which, as another commenter noted, the don't, so that's hardly lack of trying), and allow everyone to join the party without requiring any allegiance to party rules that go beyond allegiance to the country itself.
china could do the same btw. china also, as far as i heard, does allow dissent within the party.
The erosion of freedom is everyone's problem. Normalizing government control over personal bank accounts is a dangerous precedent. Today it's scam prevention, tomorrow it's freezing accounts of political opponents.
Thank you for this good response to my shit comment. It was intended to make some point along these lines, but, reading it again, it completely didn't.
The obvious correct answer is Bob Weilbacher, who fired me with no reason given from my cherished $3.75/hour job in the mailroom at Cal State Fullerton back in 1979.
The damage done by scammers is enormous. Families losing their life’s savings. Quite often these scams are perpetrated on less sophisticated people so the economic damage to them is even more devastating.
It’s not like the government woke up one day and started to cane scammers. There have been years of educational programs in different languages. A campaign with special focus on protecting the elderly. Every time you transfer money with your online banking app you get a warning about scammers. They instituted an SMS registry that results in unknown numbers (for instance pretending to be your bank) showing up as “LIKELY SCAM” on your phone. That hasn’t eradicated the problem, so now the punishment goes up.
Imagine a government that actually protects its citizens…
My mom just lost about fifteen thousand dollars. The sad part is, she knew full well, for years now, if you hear a certain accent from a cold call, just hang up the phone. She received calls almost every day since she still needs a landline to talk to family, so she is very well versed in avoiding them.
So for her to fall for a scam has us worried, it might be a sign of neurodegenerative disease. She went from sharp as a tack when it came to ignoring scammers, to falling into it. I'm sure this is a very common theme. These parasites prey on the elderly losing their mental acuity
There should be a special place in hell for people who take advantage of the elderly
Or they used a different accent
What would actually help the scammed families would be getting the lost resources back, at least partially. I realize that it may be hard, for the resources may have been squandered.
Scamming would be much less prevalent if money were trackable, scam transactions would be possible to roll back, yes, transitively, from all the downstream users. The downstream users would then be keenly interested in the provenance of the money they're being paid. Ironically, blockchain-based currencies are perfectly trackable (at least in theory; mixers make it harder). Sadly, this has a ton of obvious privacy implications.
I've been in banking for quite some time of my life and hands down, there is no country in the world that makes bankers with let's say questionable skills in risk assessment and decision making more afraid. Millions in fines, maybe more? Zero fucks given. Messing with regulators in Singapore? Not worth it. Wouldn't be surprised if they send or have sent people out to tell the somewhat gory stories of the canings in Singapore.
Personally, I don't believe in preventive effects of draconian punishment, but I also don't believe in cokeheads. Being a cokehead in Singapore means risking facing the mandatory death sentence for posession of more than 30g of cocaine, which depending on the habit is a months supply max for some.
>depending on the habit is a months supply max for some
People with substance abuse problems are generally the "get more every day or two" type not the "have a month's supply on hand" type.
And I really believe more in corporal punishment for a lot of things than the maze of fines, legal costs, and probation which really seems more like complicated inconvenience.
For drunk driving, sexual assault, and grand theft the appropriate punishment for the first offense is a public beating where they stop half way through and give you a chance to admit guilt and apologize on camera or they keep going. It would be particularly good for any fraud that nets you, say over a million dollars. Only for the kinds of crimes that have significant victims.
I would respectfully disagree. While Singapore likes to “kill the chicken to teach the monkey” they absolutely are examples of kid gloves.
The recent corruption case of a Minister taking gifts of hundreds of thousands resulted in a few months custodial sentence for the Minister and nothing for the rich “donor”.
Massive money laundering scam? Stiff punishment for the foreigners and kid gloves for the local lawyers and bankers who facilitated it all.
Singaporeans constantly complain about how being rich in Singapore protects from actual punishment.
Singapore is an odd country. The only country, to my knowledge, that had independence thrust upon it without its consent. Extremely prosperous compared to its neighbors. An autocratic, single party state where the government is so popular that they need to rig their elections against themselves to get dissenting voices. One of the most militarized countries (#3 by military spending per capita) in the world, yet their military has barely been used.
What would you even call their socioeconomic system? They're not exactly doing neoliberal capitalism, their government is far too involved for that. They're not socialist, they've got free enterprise galore. The autocracy+militarization+heavily meddled with big business thing most resembles fascist states, but without the typical racist scapegoating (on the contrary, they've put a frankly inordinate amount of effort into preventing racial infighting).
In most countries "The country also passed a new law earlier this year that would allow the police to control the bank accounts of individuals who they suspect to be scam targets and limit what transactions they can do." would probably set off alarm bells, but it does seem like business as usual in Singapore.
I’ve never been there but whenever I read something about it I get the vibe that they’re an HOA with a military.
William Gibson got a lifetime ban for calling it "Disney with the death penalty" in a Wired article.
Not really.
They are famous for having a lot of rules, but the instances where they really go wild are when someone has been particularly egregious.
For the most part it is just insanely materialistic as the main downside.
Most of the "harsh" rules make a tremendous amount of sense when you actually go there. Yeah, gum and spitting are illegal, and that is a good thing in a city as crowded as that with a significant population from countries where spitting is customary. Take an overnight train in China, and you will come to discover that you too appreciate a place where people can't just hork one up at will.
To put it into perspective, SG is one of the rare tier 1 cities where you can get a Michelin meal from a street vendor (literally), after engaging the services of a prostitute, and drinking a beer in public. It isn't nearly as uptight as an HOA.
> Yeah, gum […] illegal […]
This trope, long exhausted and repeatedly regurgitated, persists despite the reality having shifted considerably.
In truth, chewing gum has been legally obtainable in Singapore for a long time and is available for purchase through local pharmacies.
>that they need to rig their elections against themselves to get dissenting voices
I don't believe this is true. If you're talking about Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, they are consolation prizes given to best losers, and there are many things they cannot vote on. Moreover, the ruling party almost never lifts the party whip, i.e. members of the party CANNOT vote against the party line (without being kicked out of the party, which results in them being kicked out of parliament). In other words, since the ruling party already has a majority, any opposing votes literally do not matter.
If you aren't talking about the NCMP scheme, then I do not know what you're talking about, as the ruling party does institute policies that are beneficial for the incumbent party.
If you haven't, go read "The Singapore Story" https://annas-archive.org/md5/6578558e0416e264a39da0448003ec... If you're bored, skip to the Japanese invasion Chapter and then read on. Many unique things happened in Singapore to make Singapore, Singapore.
> Singapore is an odd country
The reason you find it odd is because you really can't find another country that the citizen have such a high trust towards the government and let the government do (almost) anything they wanted, yet the government doesn't abuse this power (mostly, at least) and continue focus on long term benefits of the country (rather than short term gains because the political party need to survive the next election in few years time)
> One of the most militarized countries (#3 by military spending per capita) in the world, yet their military has barely been used.
Ther reason is quite simple: Singapore is a very small country and it is very easily to be invaded. The high military spending is more of a deterent.
> What would you even call their socioeconomic system?
It is very much a free market capitalism with some state intervention, similar to many other countries. If anything, I would say Singapore is more free market than many western countries due to the fact that the government is very pro-business as the country is heavily rely on foreign businesses to survive.
> What would you even call their socioeconomic system?
China economically functions similarly to Singapore, with long documented connections and explicit emulation. In 1978, Deng Xiaoping already began this and hundreds of thousands of Chinese officials and leaders were trained there and in industrial parks with the explicit goal of knowledge sharing with the dream of "planting 1000 Singapores". [0, 1, 2, 3]
> fascist states, but without the typical racist scapegoating
Tangential, but Hitler added racism; Mussolini, Salazar, Franco/de Rivera (who used large Arab and Berber forces fighting the Republicans in Spain) etc. had none of that (until Hitler forced Mussolini's hand in 1938). Brazilian integralists and many other fascisms also weren't racially based.
[0] https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3042046/does... [1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24761028.2021.1... [2] https://www.fairobserver.com/economics/china-and-its-mentor-... [3] https://www.thinkchina.sg/politics/construction-singapore-mo...
You might want to freshen up your history lessons with maybe some less revisionist sources, because Mussolini-wise I have some bad news for you.
I'm not defending any of those people. Mussolini was a monster who used gas in Ethiopia and many other things, yes. But that wasn't the topic. Fascist Italy didn't do "racist scapegoating" and blame internal problems on people of other races.
Italy's favorite scapegoat was almost always Britain and the UN's predecessor.
Then deliver the news and have constructive discussions.
For what it's worth is well accepted among most fascism historians that racism, at least in the sense of adopting racial laws and such came late, and mostly as a byproduct of the German alliance.
As for what did Italy do itself before that, if you're referring to the wars in Africa, that has nothing to do with fascism, and the two biggest colonial powers at the time were both very sane democracies.
Eh, that's giving Mussolini more credit than he deserves. A core component of his platform was conquering swathes of Africa on colonial grounds.
It isn't "racist scapegoating" to conquer places in Africa, because it's not blaming some race for internal problems.
That has nothing to do with fascism as you may not be aware but Italy started fighting colonial wars well before WW1 and the other hard on colonialists were all democracies.
On top of that: I'm sick of people writing fascism when they mean dictatorship.
And this is why I can't take anyone's fascism definition seriously. Those definitions are contradictory, and include and exclude governments that don't deserve it. Especially when they try to imply that X = fascist = bad guy. If I heard about Umberto Eco one more time!!
What would you even call their socioeconomic system?
Pure authoritarianism.
And yet the average Singaporean is freer economically, socially, and ideologically.
No freedom of press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, government owns/operates roughly ⅓ of the economy that features many state monopolies, the PAP maintains a gerrymandered control over the electorate, criticizing the government lands you in court for defamation and conveniently bankrupts can't run for parliament.
Singapore is many things but not none of what you've written.
Singaporeans have insanely high quality of life and high pride in their system and people. They have an immense number of negative freedoms that the average person across the world could only dream of: freedom from violence, freedom from the devastating effects of drug addiction on families and society, freedom from poverty, freedom from corruption, freedom from instability. For the average person looking to raise a family, build a quality life, and just live well, Singapore is the perfect social contract. Don't like it? They have the most powerful or second most powerful passport in the world and can move anywhere else they see fit, yet they see their country as the best place they could be
So it's like Europe but ten times better.
Most countries are going to fall flat compared to the United States. Singapore is pretty amazing.
It could really just be the money.
Their social system is familiar to anyone with an Asian family
>What would you even call their socioeconomic system?
Asian Switzerland.
And if that offends anyone it ought to be the Swiss (and any fanboys they may have who take offense on their behalf).
Hmm, a clean, safe, prosperous country with world class education, top medical facilities, a technocratic highly competent government, reasonable taxes, and a place that people like to come for vacation…I can see how this would offend people
[dead]
> What would you even call their socioeconomic system? They're not exactly doing neoliberal capitalism, their government is far too involved for that. They're not socialist, they've got free enterprise galore. The autocracy+militarization+heavily meddled with big business thing most resembles fascist states
It's just State Capitalism, isn't it? Like China. A market-based economy with free enterprise, but no illusions of egalitarianism or democracy, enables the state to step in and manage and direct the market with effective regulation. In a democracy the state can manage this for a time, but eventually a private entity or group of entities leverages their power to influence law and co-opt democratic power, so the market starts steering its own regulation and you end up with fascism as a means of population control or a Russia-style cleptocratic oligarchy. We have not yet figured out how to sustain democracy + capitalism, if it's even possible.
I worry that most will see the rise of countries like Singapore and China and the relative decline of the US/EU and conclude that democracy is a failed project all together.
I'm not saying democracy is a failed project all together, but something that has been on my mind a lot recently is that democracy is quite inefficient - where I'm from anyway (New Zealand). We are a small country, with general elections every four years. So most of the decisions our government takes a less bold, and optimized for short term interests and to get the next cycle vote. And when we have had times a government has made plans for a large infrastructure project, a successive government will come in and undo all of that planning.
For example, Auckland, our major economic hub, doesn't even have proper public transportation, and now citizens are battling with issues commuting to and from work.
I think part of Singapore's success has been it's ability to make bold decisions and see it through without worrying about short term election cycles.
China does have illusions of egalitarianism, though. They don't call themselves the "Communist" party without reason. And enterprise, to my understanding, is much, much freer in Singapore than it is in China.
"Disneyland with the death penalty"
That article is more than three decades old now. Time to give it a rest.
Meanwhile, the US carries out extrajudicial killings over drugs
It's not at all clear they they're not just killing fishermen and migrants.
I'm sure incidents happen, but I doubt there's many uses for privates in south America to own private submarines.
[flagged]
> "The country also passed a new law earlier this year that would allow the police to control the bank accounts of individuals who they suspect to be scam targets and limit what transactions they can do."
This is crazy to me. How far are we willing to go in terms of restricting freedoms for safety?
But this is just part of how Singapore is different than America and Europe. China has even stricter controls in terms of limiting what individuals can do with their bank accounts (you can't transfer money to non-Chinese-citizens at all!).
Western countries put enormous value on personal liberty — America probably the most so, but even EU countries are extremely liberal in a liberty sense compared to historical norms, and even compared to some well-functioning economies today like China and Singapore. It's interesting, since I think the idea of personal liberty is so deeply engrained in many of our consciousnesses that we couldn't conceive of living like that. But... plenty of people do, and they're happy about it.
you can't transfer money to non-Chinese-citizens at all!
that's not true. you just have to document and explain the transfer, if it is a foreign bank account. and if it is a local one then the citizenship of he account holder does not even matter.
Western countries put enormous value on personal liberty
in everyday life the limits on personal liberty in china are hardly noticeable. and they are contrasted with safety even when walking through dark neighborhoods at 3am in the morning.
> Western countries put enormous value on personal liberty — America probably the most so
Ah yes, nothing screams valuing personal freedom like having 2 million people *in prison* right now in US. A rate of what, one every 140 adults?
And nothing screams personal freedom like spying every single of it's citizens or hacking every single chip on this planet.
Hell, US respects your freedom so much, you can't even renounce their citizenship!!
Plenty of people seem to be quite supportive of the idea that visa holders (ie not citizens), or simply brown people, should NOT be allowed to criticize the standing president, so I don't know that the idea of personal liberty is as strong as I believed it was growing up.
If you live in Singapore: don't ask us! If you disagree, vote against the government, and/or get out on the streets and protest!
If you don't live in Singapore: it's not your problem.
It’s practically a one party state, no? And I’ve heard lots of stories of protesters getting disappeared after the police arrest them. Easy to say these things.
I did indeed have exactly these sorts of things in mind - but I should have spent more time iterating on my comment, the end result possibly being not to post any comment at all, because it didn't end up coming out as intended. I'll refer you to my other reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45818568
They are a one party state, but not for lack of trying. It just turns out that turning a country from a fishing village to a world-class economy in a couple decades buys you a lot of good will from the voters.
a one party state is not the problem. you don't need multiple parties to allow multiple opinions and dissent. all they would need to do is to allow dissenting votes within the party (which, as another commenter noted, the don't, so that's hardly lack of trying), and allow everyone to join the party without requiring any allegiance to party rules that go beyond allegiance to the country itself.
china could do the same btw. china also, as far as i heard, does allow dissent within the party.
The erosion of freedom is everyone's problem. Normalizing government control over personal bank accounts is a dangerous precedent. Today it's scam prevention, tomorrow it's freezing accounts of political opponents.
> tomorrow it's freezing accounts of political opponents
Except that this already happened[0], and not in "authoritarian" Singapore but in "liberal" Canada.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385
Human rights are everyone's problem.
Thank you for this good response to my shit comment. It was intended to make some point along these lines, but, reading it again, it completely didn't.
A much more restrictive form of this has long been normal in the US; called conservatorship.
The cops adding checks and balances to delay you from wiring $50,000k overseas is a great government looking out for the vulnerable.
It’s a city state, calling it a country is a stretch.
[flagged]
Kyle Davies of 3AC first?
No. It's sad that you would think that way.
The obvious correct answer is Bob Weilbacher, who fired me with no reason given from my cherished $3.75/hour job in the mailroom at Cal State Fullerton back in 1979.