And now.. THIS. Any Singaporean HNers out there, if you're up for it, as a programmer, I'm wanna build something to circumvent this. Holler if you're keen. Cheers.
--
On another note, this is why whenever people say that Singapore is a fine place to start a business, I say thats probably because you don't "live LIVE" here. It's just another hub that you'll attempt to start up a business, and leave somewhat. Unless you come from a 3rd world/developing nation and come here to build wages. Other than that, I don't know many true blue Singaporeans that's actually happy with the state of things.
But if the regulations are about monitoring, reviewing and controlling, say, local news reports before they are published on those websites, then there is nothing you can do, unfortunately.
This might not be possible to circumvent with a 'hack'. What this is, is the digital equivalent to the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act [1] (which is part of the "regulatory framework" for traditional news platforms that is cited in the article). It's a legal/regulatory thing, not a software thing.
Put simply, yes, this is a way for the government to regulate major news organisations that are regularly visited by Singapore IP addresses, and that write Singapore-related news articles at least once a week. (The MDA seems to consider online services regulated under the Broadcasting Act. [2]) So:
(1) they ask these big companies to put up a $50,000 bond; (2) big company's employees may feel the need to self-censor, especially if there's a possibility that they might lose their jobs and much more if they're the ones who write the articles causing big company to lose part of their performance bond; (3) they achieve some degree of control over news and media organisations with an incorporated entity in Singapore, since those are the easiest to regulate.
The way I see it, it's really hard to define what Singapore-related news is, and 50,000 unique IPs is roughly 0.08% of the IPv4 addresses allocated to Singapore [3]. Considering that most consumer internet services here use dynamic IP allocation, it's not a high threshold to hit.
(I'm not a lawyer. I'm also very interested in hearing everyone else's take on this.)
[1] http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=...
[2] http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=...
[3] data from http://www.nirsoft.net/countryip/sg.html
1) Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years);
2) The global business community doesn't give a shit about democracy, as demonstrated by its rush to embrace China, the Middle East, etc, and the corresponding apologizing about their political systems.
I nearly puked on Metro North the other day (like a drunk Westchester teen after too much fun in Manhattan) reading an article where some commentator with business interests in China tried to downplay the free speech situation in China as "cultural differences."
That is demonstrably false. Everywhere you look, throughout history, the more free a country is, the more economically prosperous it becomes. In fact, _every single example_ fits this pattern. There is not a single exception.
China and Singapore are much more economically free than the US (and most other places), and that's why they have seen economic "miracles."
If your argument is, "You don't have to have 100% freedom to have economic prosperity," _that_ is true, but it's not an interesting observation. No country in history has (quite) been a utopia of freedom.
> The global business community doesn't give a shit about democracy, as demonstrated by its rush to embrace China, the Middle East, etc, and the corresponding apologizing about their political systems.
You're treating the "global business community" like it's a "class," in the Marxist sense: a bunch of people who all think alike. In fact, there are just a bunch of individuals.
Most businessmen have similar values and ideas to the rest of the culture. Which is to say, not great, not horrible.
I plan to go into business eventually in some form, and I hope you don't justify punishing _me_ on the basis of your characterization of the "global business community."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_...
It is more than two timer lower than in my country and I consider our country rather poor on average.
Singapore is more complicated.
As explained in another comment, this is not what the American rhetoric claims. It's rather the other way around, economic freedom is a requirement for political freedom and indeed, China has improved politically since it's opened economically though they still have a long way.
2- Singapore is a small and unique example.
3- The middle east is wealthy because of natural resources, and here lack of freedom really helps.
Then we also have the UAE, where women can't drive cars. But they are our friend and supply our oil, so we'll never hear about that. You will even find documentaries on job opportunities in Dubai et al on TV.
To call Singapore a "fascist dictatorship" is only true in the most literal senses of the words. It's by no means perfect, but Singapore has a much better record on human rights than anyone generally considered "fascist dictatorships". I'm not suggesting they should get a free pass, but it's not exactly Belarus there.
Not only the literal sense, but also in any dictionary sense of the words. What you perhaps meant to say is that it doesn't have some of the secondary characteristics (e.g. starving peasants) that are usually connoted when the phrase "fascist dictatorships" is used.
They're not a dictatorship either. Their political structure does have a working set of checks and balances that does seem to prevent an individual at the top from doing whatever they want. Call them a "paternalistic oligarchy" if you want, but "fascist dictatorship" is way out of line.
On the other hand, I would not want to be anywhere near the place if the ruling party actually loses an election, as freedom is not high on their agenda.
Get help.
The common justification for loving Apple is that their imposition of rules is based on a fantastic focus on making things 'just work'. And that abiding by the rules is a small price to pay.
Also, let's not forget that Singapore is a country that's smaller than New York City. Of course, NYC is not as free as many places in the US either...
Signals at such high frequencies simply wouldn't penetrate the extremely dense urban landscape of Singapore other than along a narrow northern coastal strip.
You know, tell them "thanks, you did a great job developing this country, but we would like to take it from here and control our own future...".
What would happen? Is there any way to do this that would be successful?
(1) Much of the older generation and many newly naturalised immigrants feel that the incumbent government brought them to where they are today, and are willing to give up some liberties for economic success.
(2) Many of Singapore's constituencies are banded into groups for election and town management purposes. [1] The party in power has the advantage in that Cabinet ministers are members of the majority party appointed by the leader, enjoy a much higher media profile by virtue of their jobs, and are more often than not the heavyweight in a group electoral contest. This makes it difficult for opposing parties to win in a positive publicity contest, since they enjoy far fewer opportunities for positive media coverage.
(3) The perception of opposition quality in Singapore is still very negative. While there were opposition candidates with stellar educational and professional backgrounds in the previous election, much of the talent willing to enter politics tend to be courted by the leading party. Also, no opposition party thus far has spoken out against this policy.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_Representation_Constituen...
"Online news sites that report regularly on issues relating to Singapore and have significant reach among readers here will require an individual license" This is so vague. If everyone on Facebook and Twitter is talking about Singapore (which are not news sites), would FB and Twitter require a license?
It says that it does not apply to blogs. So everything here is ok? Again, blogs/news site/video sites are so vague. News is essentially a content type, not a platform type. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/blogs/directory.html
I think this is unrealistic and is not going work in the long run.
Unfortunately it will be poorly implemented, and going to look like Chinas firewall.
I just wish instead of trying to spend money on silencing most of the bunch of morons who somehow got an audience on lies and rumours (most of the time) - they open up to more transparency and would somehow counter most of the bs articles.
They like to call themselves "alternative media" and everyone else are "politically correct corrupt media". Sigh.
ps Does anyone remember the series of images comparing George Orwell with someone else regarding the overload of bad/junk information? ds
I am absolutely certain Orson Welles would not be seen dead in your company (unfortunately, he's not around to complain).
Attitudes like yours have been exploited to justify every limitation on the freedom of speech in the history of limitations on freedom of speech - and it's very long. You're what a certain imposer of these limitations referred to a useful idiot.
I did not say George Orwell was behind the concept stated.
I did not agree with the solution/suggestion presented by the Singaporean government.
I said the hate-mongering articles/rumours posted by these sites for ad-money _IS A PROBLEM_ that can easily be handled by refuting their bs with proof and transparency.
Seriously, reading comprehension. Though I do think my sentences were poorly structured, it did not say what you you seem to think it said.
You're referring to Stuart McMillen's comic-style adaptation of a part of Neil Postman's book, "Amusing Ourselves to Death". Though McMillen has removed his poster at the request of Postman's estate [1], you can still find the comic on the internet [2].
1 = http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing-ours...
2 = http://www.juxtapoz.com/current/huxley-vs-orwell-in-graphic-...
I think the best way to do what Orson Welles tried to warn us about, is to "amuse your sheeps to death".
