He is obviously a smart person. I wouldn’t vote for him though. He recently sued and won a “libel” case against a blogger who reposted a link to a Malaysian web site claiming the PM is involved in the 1MDB scandal.
Singapore is a one-party police state with zero press freedom and a poor track record of respecting human rights (being gay is still illegal).
So whilst it’s impressive that politician can code, I don’t like him, his views, or his political party.
It's also illegal in Singapore to proceed with any investigation of government activity. There are no checks and balances. There is no investigative journalism or allowed points of view that are not approved by the state. There is conflict of interest within the government, and no ability to dig into it without prosecution.
Imagine Obama suing a college student for something they wrote on their blog. Now, Trump might have done something like that.. which is the main parallel to draw with the current leadership in Singapore.
US policy regarding prosecution of leaks, suppression of journalists, etc is mostly independent of which President sits in the White House. The fact that you believe otherwise shows that you have massive blinkers on - propaganda has successfully done its job.
> US policy regarding prosecution of leaks, etc is mostly independent of which President sits in the White House. The fact that you believe otherwise shows that you have massive blinkers on - propaganda has successfully done its job.
As my other comment mentioned, this is not about leaks. This is about open questions being raised by citizens of a government, who wish to see more investigation into the activities of the government. I said nothing about prosecution for leaks, nor is this discussion even about that.
The line drawn is a bit thin there since investigative journalism necessarily involves whistleblowers or asking pointed questions based on tips. Trump had Obama to show him the true way of suppression and merrily followed in his footsteps.
Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-invoked-espionage-act-i...
Dana Priest, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for The Washington Post, added: “Obama’s attorney general repeatedly allowed the F.B.I. to use intrusive measures against reporters more often than any time in recent memory. The moral obstacles have been cleared for Trump’s attorney general to go even further, to forget that it’s a free press that has distinguished us from other countries, and to try to silence dissent by silencing an institution whose job is to give voice to dissent.”
https://www.cato.org/commentary/vendetta-how-obama-administr...
Fast and Furious involved a sting operation that the Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives concocted to infiltrate and weaken Mexican drug cartels. The scheme entailed shipping traceable guns to the drug trafficking gangs and then following the trail to identify and neutralize those organizations and the kingpins who ran them. But Operation Fast and Furious backfired badly. Law enforcement personnel assigned to maintain the traces lost track of where the weapons ultimately ended up. The cartels received more than 1,700 additional weapons at the expense of US taxpayers. Not surprisingly, the Obama administration sought to conceal the nature and extent of the fiasco. Invoking “executive privilege,” Attorney General Eric Holder even defied a congressional subpoena and refused to testify before a House committee investigating the Fast and Furious scheme.
I don't think the overton window is very far from the worst case for the US, but it is documented that Obama specifically did not want to charge Assange because of press freedom concerns. Of course in the long term it didn't matter because every 4-8 years everyone has global amnesia and decides to swap for a completely different kind of head of state.
The american state is a large behemoth that moves on its own for much (and almost always in the wrong direction), but it's not like there are absolutely zero differences between who sits in the chair (and there is a lot of potential for someone who has the will to effect change).
Actually, what am I saying? The Obama Administration started the persecution of Assange. Obama took office at the beginning of 02009, and the Assange affair started in 02010.
Getting it out that Obama did not want Assange prosecuted is typical of American style politics. When you are on both sides of the fence you can address criticism by pointing out that you did not want to take the action or pointing to the action that you did take to get him extradited. It is a win no matter which way the wind blows.
The picture you’re painting doesn’t reflect the reality of the country. Singapore is consistently rated as one of the least corrupt countries in the world.
It’s actually a very nice country for an Expat to live in. Much of the gain with little of the negatives, and usually a limit on your overall exposure to these things. And most expats are much more focused on their individual experiences than the long-term effects of a government.
You are referring to something different, a government attack on leaks of classified info. I don't have an opinion on that.
What Singapore's PM has done is personally sue people, such as college students, for speculation on their blogs. Not at all the same thing -- no leaks of government information, instead, open questions attempting to investigate and raise awareness of conflicts of interest. Some students have gone bankrupt by these attacks.
No comparison is ever perfect. No, Obama didn't jail a college student blogger. He did go after Assange, Manning, and many others. He attacked more people willing to uncover government activities than any other president.
But you're right, it's not an exact same thing as suing speculating college students. It's much worse. We live in a democratic republic supposedly.
It was Trump who actually went against Assange at the end of the day. The extradition was started under his administration. Obama's administration did decide not to go forward with it.
It sounds like people are arguing about which President to blame for the jailing of journalists when both parties in the US hold the same position on the matter. The details are circumstantial.
According to all records on this, the reason he was not charged by Obama was that his administration was afraid the case would not hold up in court. If they felt differently, I don't see why the extradition request wouldn't have been made, whether he was still held up in the Ecuadorian embassy or not. After all, Ecuador and the US have had an extradition treaty since 1872 and all that the US had to do is pressure Ecuador and wait/influence them till a new government was in place.
It was Trump's administration that according to all information simply felt differently about the case entirely. This is why his Justice Department went forward.
>President Barack Obama’s Justice Department had extensive internal debates about whether to charge Assange amid concerns the case might not hold up in court and would be viewed as an attack on journalism by an administration already taking heat for leak prosecutions.
>
>But senior Trump administration officials seemed to make clear early on that they held a different view, dialing up the rhetoric on the anti-secrecy organization shortly after it made damaging disclosures about the CIA’s cyberespionage tools.
AP(1)
I mean if you have sources to the contrary, please share them. But all that was available so far doesn't really help your assumption there. Also, is this really surprising? Trump promised (but thankfully failed) to "open up Libel laws" after all.(2)
> Attorney General Eric Holder directed the Department of Justice to aggressively prosecute government employees who discussed classified information with reporters. In 2012, after news organizations reported on U.S. drone strikes and attempts to disable Iranian nuclear reactors, Holder assigned two U.S. attorneys to track down the journalists’ sources.
I've found some talk about a Fox News reporter being investigated, but I don't see anything anywhere (yet) about any reporters being arrested. Can you cite your sources, please?
> jailed any reporters, unlike the record achieved by Obama
Also, during the unrest of 2020 dozens of credentialed journalists were assaulted by government forces, including in many places by state and local police that were backstopped with federal agents.
I have long been banging on that software is a new form of literacy (and will have similar deep far reaching social changes)
I completely agree with you about the Singapore PMs political views. But this is a turning in the weather - all of us must become coders - the "elites", our leaders, our children, our accountants etc. And one country has now got one "literate" leader. He will make different decisions because of his literacy.
We might not like those decisions, but software awareness will affect his decisions (although probably less than local politics, economics, bribes etc)
I would say it's less important for our leaders to be at the coalface and coding / learning to code than for them to know what's possible.
During the last industrial revolution, the leaders who we all hear about weren't directly involved in building the machines which automated processes. Rather, they were experts at leveraging skills of people who could do it.
Wow, I was surprised to see that Sri Lanka was not on the list. Does anyone know the story behind that? Also, Nepal and Bangladesh are missing. That is also strange. All of them are certainly (proud) democracies!
Why would a “Summit on Democracy” matter other then to show who the US are pals with and which ones (by omission) would rather be pals with other (opposing) powers?
Woah! AT (Audrey Tang) [1] is an amazing person. For those unaware, she is a "minister without portfolio for digital affairs" (a mouthful!) in Taiwan. I tried to Google about this but couldn't find anything. Can you share a link?
>The point is; Singapore doesn't toe the US line on China and therefore gets HRW and similar thrown after them.
Human Rights Watch isn't part of the American government. They've criticized the US numerous times. So much so that they are concluding that the US is trying to discredit them.(1) Singapore might simply not have been invited because they're not a real democracy.
>Which is absurd as Singapore is by far the best-governed country in the neighbourhood.
I suspect there's a reasonable argument to be made that under certain circumstances, democracy is a substantial barrier to optimization of governance. Between Soviet/CCP long-term planning capacity and the fascists' making the trains run on time, industrial totalitarianism has a track record of getting the job done.
That said, all that job-doing is at the mortal expense of anyone who disagrees, stands in the way, or can be scapegoated for standing in the way. Also, woe be upon you if your leadership selection process picks a dud (compare the damage an incompetent megalomaniac leader in a limited democratic system can do to the same result in an absolutist dictatorship).
Singapore is a democracy, claiming otherwise is just an idiotic insult.
You see the pattern of the same group holding power for a very long time in some countries, in particular in times of high growth (rather than oscillating between blocks like the US).
For example LDP in Japan or the socialdemocrats in Sweden.
It really doesn't mean that they are not democratic.
In general, I think it's very dangerous to assume that politicians--especially ones who can secure premier positions--are stupid. It makes it too easy give up against them, to explain away the evils they commit as "whaddayagonnado?"
Wild that there are people who take enough time out of their day to pass laws against it.
I only ever think of gay men when I’m made aware that some countries have laws against them. Otherwise I’m never aware of any “public displays” because I don’t care what boys are doing with their mates.
Yes, I feel the same. And the same can be said for those who are unwilling to repeal remaining laws. It is disturbing that MPs in Singapore regularly refer to Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code as "dead letter". If it is truly dead letter, why not skip lunch, and repeal it?
> It is disturbing that MPs in Singapore regularly refer to Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code as "dead letter". If it is truly dead letter, why not skip lunch, and repeal it?
Don't be so quick to dismiss. There are lots of great community fundraisers in San Francisco that feature drag queens. Sure, the audiences will be, on balance, more queer people than average, but these events are still lots of fun for any human being.
I lived in the second gayest city in America for a good while and I wasn’t walking in on gay orgies. I don’t recall a single instance of gay public affection despite being outside often, but I also don’t recall any straight instances either because I don’t care about it. I have good success finding desirable partners and don’t hold feelings of jealousy or anything so any instances of PDA leave my mind because I don’t care about them.
It seems like either a personal problem, or a problem with lawlessness in general. Would you be happier walking in on straight orgies? Is that legal in Singapore? Seems wild that they’d allow that, but your post implies it.
When you wrote "bridge", I assume you meant either the "Johor–Singapore Causeway" [1] or "Malaysia–Singapore Second Link" [2]. There are two bridges that connect Singapore to another country -- both lead to Malaysia.
Are you familiar with LBGT rights in Malaysia? Just a quick look at the Wiki page [3] says: <<Penalty: Up to 20 years imprisonment with caning, fines, and deportation. Muslim citizens may be charged in Islamic court. Vigilante executions and beatings are also tolerated.>> That doesn't sound like a good place for LGBT people.
Same-sex marriages have no legal recognition and gay couples cannot adopt children. No laws exist to prevent discrimination against gay people in employment or housing.
Amazing how you can take recent victories of liberties in certain places and then start judging other countries when they don't abide by them.
Give them time! Don't assassinate them for being who they have been for years upon years and how they still have not changed as much as you would be pleased.
Honestly, the world will start to see a backward shift on woke culture after the PR disaster that the far left wing administration in the US is becoming.
Singapore is an island nation with a tiny population (~7M) and has loads of national security concerns including destabilizing forces spreading misinformation.
So, no, suing for libel in a personal capacity does NOT equate to exercising state power as you assert. Unless you claim the entire Judiciary and state apparatus which has a long track record of issuing rulings both for and against public personalities is somehow flawed.
This is HN, i wouldn't have expected a comment such as this to go unchecked this long.
Correction: Singapore has a population of 5.7 million. Were you thinking of the 7.5 million that live in Hongkong?
Also, I don't understand this part: <<has loads of national security concerns including destabilizing forces spreading misinformation.>> I think the ruling parties (including opposition!) of every sovereign state on planet Earth could/would/does make the exact same claim. Claims like that feel like "The War on Terror" which makes no sense on so many levels. See also: Countries that are permanently in a "revolution". Example: Iran's Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution (SCCR; Persian: شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی)
The sentence and the security environment in the region are well documented and covered in the security posture reviews routinely covered by official press.
Singapore is a one-party police state with zero press freedom and a poor track record of respecting human rights (being gay is still illegal).
So whilst it’s impressive that politician can code, I don’t like him, his views, or his political party.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Singapore-blogger-crowdfund...