You Westerners, will you ever learn what freedom truly means?

[aelf]

Don't take it from me. Take it from these guys.

Critics call Singapore an autocracy. But I never felt more free than when I lived there.

But not everyone shared my admiration. At the time, a friend of mine from the U.S. told me nothing could make her move to Singapore: “I would hate to live in a country where my freedoms are curtailed,” she declared loftily. I could only laugh. There I was, freer than anytime I had been in my life. I had just found a job I loved. I could go see a movie with friends and return by myself late at night. I could fall asleep in a taxi, after reeling off my address, and the driver would safely take me home and gently wake me up. Singapore maintains an efficient – if strict – judicial system, fundamental to living in a low-crime society while practicing individual freedom. I had tasted the real freedom that came with security.

Many point to the price Singapore’s citizens and residents pay for achieving that security. The government imposes strict laws with steep fines and punishments for even minor transgressions: Breaching the ban on selling gum can fetch a fine north of $70,000. Vandalizing property can lead to caning. These kinds of sentences may be an affront to American ideals, but in Singapore, like many Asian countries, ensuring the greater good is paramount to self-determination. Americans, it should be noted, also pay a price for the premium they put on individual liberties.

...

Yes, Lee Kuan Yew was not a paragon of the kind of democracy that throws up populist political leaders. Yes, his acerbic remarks would never have won a TV debate or an election in the U.S. But he was not one of the self-serving, corrupt dictators that developing countries produce so often. It would be folly to deny him his due credit for building a nation regularly listed as the world’s best place to live. He accomplished in one generation what took other newly developed countries three or more. He delivered the strong medicine needed to transform a nascent and suffering country into a mature nation, capable of punching far above its weight.

Link

The Legacy of Lee Kuan Yew and the Myth of Trade-Offs

Some of my Western friends who have never lived here for any period of time have sometimes self-righteously proclaimed, no doubt after reading the cliches in the media, that they could never live under the "stifling and draconian" laws that we have.

My answer to them is simple: are you the sort to urinate in public when a toilet isn't available, the sort to vandalize public property, the sort that would leave a mess in a public toilet? Are you the sort who would throw rubbish on the streets for others to pick up, the sort that would stick gum on train doors or leave it on the pavement to dry up into another ugly black scar? Are you perhaps a drug smuggler? We execute drug smugglers. Or maybe you molest women? Because we whip molesters. Are you the sort that would get drunk and get into fights and maybe beat up a stranger in the bar? Back home you may get away with that; this place probably isn't for you.

...

So wither the trade-off? How are Singaporeans not free?

I'll tell you what freedom is.

Freedom is being able to walk on the streets unmolested in the wee hours in the morning, to be able to leave one's door open and not fear being burgled. Freedom is the woman who can ride buses and trains alone; freedom is not having to avoid certain subway stations after night falls. Freedom is knowing our children can go to school without fear of drugs, or being mowed down by some insane person with a gun. Freedom is knowing that we are not bound by our class, our race, our religion, and that we can excel as the individuals that we are -- the freedom to accomplish. Freedom is living in one of the least corrupt societies in the world, knowing that our ability to get things done is not going to be limited by our ability to pay someone. Freedom is fresh air and clean streets, because nothing is more inimical to our liberty of movement than being trapped at home because of suffocating smog.

These are the freedoms that Singaporeans have, freedoms that were built on the vision and hard work of Lee Kuan Yew, our first prime minister. And we have all of these, these liberties, whilst also being one of the richest countries in the world.

There was no trade-off.

Not for us.

Link

So how do you like living with your populist unfreedoms?

And these pieces were published by your mainstream press. Do you think they represent a blow to your liberal democracy?

 

[jackelgull]

I've never tried to take away anything from the man's achievements, I've just noted that not every dictator is Lee Kuan Yew. And who is going to replace him? Will he be just as competent?

 

[Lillefix]

I thought this would be about Somalia.

 

[gangleri2001]

YAWN

I've never heard somebody say Singapore wasn't a fre country so I don't know what you're talking about. BTW why do these articles assume that the West equals America. There're also lots of australians and europeans there.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

i didn't read the entire articles, but from what I have skimmed I assume those Westerners are Americans who claim to speak for The West ?
I wouldn't feel free either in a country where the cops frequently shoot to kill, people get life sentences for smoking pot, and you can't legally drink in public.
So, yeah, if I had to choose between the USA and Singapore it might be tough (but I think i would still choose the USA).
Fortunately I live in Germany and don't have to make this choice.

And yes, I am the kind of guy who would urinate in public if it's an emergency (and whoever says he's not is a lying liar who lies), and I have even brought marijuana from the Netherlands into Germany on two seperate occasions.

 

[nc-1701]

I guess the question is did you think ending of Pleasentville was a tragedy?

 

[warpus]

With its immaculate and nearly crime-free streets, Singapore in some ways offers more freedom than certain democracies.

Wow! In some ways.. more freedom than certain democracies!

"Look, in some cases we are better than some countries.". Duh.. Of course. Every country on the planet can say that.

This whole thing reads nothing more than: "Look, we're better than the U.S. and you know it, we've created a paradise worthy of praise here, so stop praising the U.S. already, their country is not really the bastion of freedom that everyone says it's supposed to be.".

This little pissing contest between Singapore and the U.S. didn't have to pull in the rest of the west along for the ride.. How about you guys battle it out for the most free country that's also paradoxically in many ways the least free? We'll give you a medal and call it a day.

You know, in the end, when you have to say: "Look at how free we are, our freedom is the best freedom rah rah rah" that just probably means that you're trying to overcompensate for something.. and that you're probably not quite as "free" as you really say you are.

 

[Tahuti]

Do you think they represent a blow to your liberal democracy?

Perhaps. Why would it be bad?

People are trained to receive a Pavlov blow whenever they hear something akin to 'maybe democracy isn't for the best'.

And yes, I am the kind of guy who would urinate in public if it's an emergency (and whoever says he's not is a lying liar who lies), and I have even brought marijuana from the Netherlands into Germany on two seperate occasions.

Historically, non-democracies have a better track record at this than democracies. Back when the voting franchise was limited and royal prerogratives of the British monarch were relatively strong, marijuana was perfectly legal. And this is no coincidence: An autocratic government is to a larger extent more independent of the people and vice versa, whereas in democracies, strong interdependence between the people and the state exists. An autocratic government has no interest in micromanaging people's personal lives for health reasons, since such a polity can exist independently of the people. Even if autocrats or oligarchs make laws that restrict personal freedoms, enforcement is usually more lax and dependent on the interests of the state.

A certain discipline is required from its rulers. And if the rulers are everyone, everyone has to be disciplined by the state.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Singapore is a small rich nation with virtually no unemployment. There are not many places like that in the world. And they all are exceedingly save.

As to "freedom"...sigh... Another instance of awkwardly squeezing everything into a matter of "freedom". Yuck. That always makes for the least efficient / most dumb-downed debates.
I really don't give a dame about "feeling free". Or rather, I don't feel free, not in Germany or the USA or Singapore. But fortunately I can at least have a half-decent life and if people have the impression that Singapore provides better opportunity for such a life due to its thriving economy because of a lack of political freedoms, than I can surely understand why such a person would laugh at "but the freedom"-outcries.
That said, I can surely understand that being able to speak ones mind is quit relevant for ones living quality - but that does not seem to be the issue (unless your are a Journalist attacking the top dogs it seems, but most people do not fall into that category, obviously).

The draconian laws is besides the point IMO. Only a proxy debate. Unless it was somehow responsible for the wealth and ample employment in Singapore. But for what it is worth: I think its draconian punishment of littering or drug are interesting concepts. I am not about to advocate those measures (and in case of publicly taking a piss I think draconian laws are just ridiculous - like people were pissing all over the place without them), but "freedom" is a weak counter-argument.

 

[trader/warrior]

I'll tell you what freedom is.

Freedom is being able to walk on the streets unmolested in the wee hours in the morning, to be able to leave one's door open and not fear being burgled. Freedom is the woman who can ride buses and trains alone; freedom is not having to avoid certain subway stations after night falls. Freedom is knowing our children can go to school without fear of drugs, or being mowed down by some insane person with a gun. Freedom is knowing that we are not bound by our class, our race, our religion, and that we can excel as the individuals that we are -- the freedom to accomplish. Freedom is living in one of the least corrupt societies in the world, knowing that our ability to get things done is not going to be limited by our ability to pay someone. Freedom is fresh air and clean streets, because nothing is more inimical to our liberty of movement than being trapped at home because of suffocating smog.

These are the freedoms that Singaporeans have, freedoms that were built on the vision and hard work of Lee Kuan Yew, our first prime minister. And we have all of these, these liberties, whilst also being one of the richest countries in the world.

There was no trade-off.

Not for us.

If we are in a freedom pissing-contest here, I would say that, like Singapore, my tiny country thats not really comparable to the US or EU larger economies has accomplished very similar things all the while having some of the least draconian laws and punishments, most free press, good freedom of assembly and generally very high freedom and democracy indexes.

Oh, and also a GDP per capita nearly twice that of Singapore, though that obviously doesn't count as much, but the other scandi countries without oil are still about as rich as Singapore.

Was there no trade-off for Singapore you say?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I've always said that the most comfortable government is a benevolent dictatorship. The only problem is that finding a benevolent dictator is pretty hard, and finding more than one in a row is really unlikely. I wish Singapore the best in their search for a replacement, but I am not overly optimistic.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I've always said that the most comfortable government is a benevolent dictatorship. The only problem is that finding a benevolent dictator is pretty hard, and finding more than one in a row is really unlikely. I wish Singapore the best in their search for a replacement, but I am not overly optimistic.

Or, if not benevolent, then at least sane with a basic grasp on things.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Or, if not benevolent, then at least sane with a basic grasp on things.

I have a theory that if they are sane with a basic grasp on things they are likely to be benevolent. Unfortunately, the desire to be a dictator is an immediate call to question someones sanity, in my opinion. Historically, benevolent dictatorships seem to only result from strange circumstances that thrust the job upon someone who never really wanted it.

 

[BvBPL]

Of course Westerners know what freedom is.

They also know what liberty is.

We've just decided one is superior to the other.

 

[aelf]

I've always said that the most comfortable government is a benevolent dictatorship. The only problem is that finding a benevolent dictator is pretty hard, and finding more than one in a row is really unlikely. I wish Singapore the best in their search for a replacement, but I am not overly optimistic.

That depends on whether you consider crushing political opponents using detention-without-trial laws and libel suits benevolent.

 

[Perfection]

I've always said that the most comfortable government is a benevolent dictatorship. The only problem is that finding a benevolent dictator is pretty hard, and finding more than one in a row is really unlikely. I wish Singapore the best in their search for a replacement, but I am not overly optimistic.

He wasn't in power for 25 years...

 

[Goodfella]

I think there are a lot of countries that have levels of 'freedom' comparable to Singapore but lack overly punitive justice systems.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That depends on whether you consider crushing political opponents using detention-without-trial laws and libel suits benevolent.

It depends a whole lot more on what the citizens who aren't being detained consider benevolent than what I think. If the citizens at large consider the dictator to be benevolent and the "political opponent" to be nothing more than a troublemaker it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks.

The problem is that the existence of that sort of apparatus makes it all the less likely that whoever survives what is almost certain to be a nasty battle for the empty seat will be in any way benevolent.

 

[nc-1701]

I have a theory that if they are sane with a basic grasp on things they are likely to be benevolent. Unfortunately, the desire to be a dictator is an immediate call to question someones sanity, in my opinion. Historically, benevolent dictatorships seem to only result from strange circumstances that thrust the job upon someone who never really wanted it.

It's just one example, but Stalin was certainly sane and certainly had a basic grasp on things. Many of the things he did were necessary, but many weren't and in the end calling him benevolent feels like a stretch.

In response to the OP I think we have to ask what does freedom mean? And how do you personally compare freedoms? Is getting gunned down by a cop better or worse than being gunned down by the mafia?
How does freedom from danger compare to political liberty or freedom to be different without fear of persecution?

For me freedom from danger is much less important than political freedoms and liberties. I may live in the crime riddled USofA in a semi-ghetto last year in fact, but I've never been afraid and have no interest in being safer but less free.

But then there's something to be said for executing people who litter cigarette butts and don't pick up their dogs feces.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

In response to the OP I think we have to ask what does freedom mean? And how do you personally compare freedoms? Is getting gunned down by a cop better or worse than being gunned down by the mafia?
How does freedom from danger compare to political liberty or freedom to be different without fear of persecution?

Absolutely. OR - even better. We do what you just said but drop the word freedom altogether while doing it (unless it is actually efficient to express something), which will make things only easier and less confusing for everybody (except the ideologues).
I demonstrate

For me freedom from danger is much less important than political freedoms and liberties.

I am sure you mean the greater safety (much shorter than freedom from danger + littering a text with the word freedom while meaning different actual things is also inherently confusing for our brains, I think) in Singapore is less important to you than the greater political freedom (in this case a description involving freedom actually says it best) in the US, right? If you mean it as general as you said it, I call utter utter BS