From: rhw@att.com (Robert Wentworth)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Singapore
Date: 13 Apr 92 20:21:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsi.1992Apr13.202102.803
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1992Apr12.044549.120531@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk> zcakilh@ucl.ac.uk (Miss Chee Mei Yeoh) writes:
...
>How bad can Singapore be if its citizens can read comp.org.eff.talk? ;-)
>As Kurt no doubt knows, it is not illegal to chew gum in Singapore.
>I don't doubt that the prospects of Singapore's government carrying
>alt.tasteless on a public network are nil :-) but to raise the spectre
>of Big Brother is (way) off the mark.
...
>ps. I hope and believe that when Kurt said that Singapore reminded him
>    an Orwellian World ("I think of Prodigy crossed with the Analects
>    of Confucius ... a sign-on logo of the smiling visage of Lee Kuan
>    Yew with mouse ears"), he spoke in jest. In case he did not, I
>    would like to tell him that (a) Singapore is much more open than
>    her critics believe or will acknowledge, and (b) whilst there are
>    clearly flaws in Singapore society [and important ones at that],
>    many of them are 'necessary evils' caused by Singapore's position
>    as a small developing nation; on the whole, I'm confident that the
>    strengths of Singapore society far outweigh the disadvantages.

While Singapore is not a full-fledged Orwellian distopia, comparisons are
not without merit.  I don't know much about the actually level of
surveillance employed by the Singaporean government, but I do know it
inspires great fear in some quarters.  Singaporean expatriots in general do
not feel free to speak openly among strangers, even in the US, given
persistent rumors of Singaporean government monitoring of Singaporean
citizens living here.  This fear and self-squelching has to be worse in
Singapore itself.

Granted, the standard of living is excellent in Singapore as a direct
consequence of the policies of Lee Kuan Yew, and *most* people probably
encounter little inconvenience from the political repression.  But the
knowledge that there is always the chance that if you are outspoken you
could be socially and economically ruined or even locked up without any
recourse has got to weigh heavy on the minds of those who may legitimately
happen to disagree with govenment policies.

For an excellent in depth discussion of the economic and political realities
of Singapore, I recommend a long (over 30 pages?) article that appeared
several months ago in (I think) The New Yorker.

>                                  There is a great deal of useful
>information that can be carried over a public network - a quality
>newspaper, educational materials, library catalogues, stock market
>information - to name but a few. Should the relative anarchy of something
>such as usenet be carried? Well, I'd like that but I believe every
>sensible person can see the formidable arguments against such a
>course.

Personally, I can't see any legitimate arguments against the anarchy
of Usenet other than a desire not to be the one paying for it.

> 
>Nigel Yeoh, Kings College London quando@well.sf.ca.us
>                                 zdtl123@oak.cc.kcl.ac.uk
> 
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,rec.photo,misc.legal,alt.bbs