Singapore is the only place I know where you can meet someone who has an economics degree from Stanford, and have her tell you that she has a liberal arts background.
I have been to Singapore several times, and love the place.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
15 comments to Thoughts on Singapore |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
This comment on the article makes me warm to Singapore:
There was a major editorial in the Economist magazine (the house journal of the international elite – our rulers) recently.
They denounced the government of Singapore for “needlessly conservative accounting methods” (actually the assumptions in the government “investment fund” are much too optimistic) and demanded that the government make people “more comfortable” with higher welfare benefits and more public services.
The people who founded the Economist magazine would weep with grief and rage.
The Economist magazine also demanded that Singapore open its doors to mass immigration – from the Islamic world (for that is where the immigrants would mainly come from).
Which, of course, would make the secession of Singapore in the early 1960s (Singapore is an example of a successful secession – Texas and so on please note, at least if you can solve the defence problem – perhaps by a new alliance of States which included many Western States).
It is hard to know what to make of the international elite – our rulers.
They do not believe that Gladstone or Winston Churchill have any insight into Islam (indeed they would ban their writings on these matters).
Many people have survived PPE courses at Oxford – but, sadly, some people do not survive.
They end up becoming writers for the Economist magazine and the “FT” newspaper. Working to destroy the West with wild government spending (funded by insane monetary policy) and opening the gates to those whom the late Chris Kyle (“American Sniper”) rightly called savages.
I am reminded of a couple of lines from an old Hammer Horror film.
“But why must he be destroyed – I survived the vampire’s bite!”
“Sadly he is not a man such as you – and, remember, in truth he is already dead”.
It is interesting to note that Singapore (under a government headed by someone who had once described himself as a socialist) seceded in the early 1960s (from Malaya) to avoid the P.C. policies that were only to hit the rest of the world much later.
For example ethnic quotas for jobs and so – which “Malaysia” created long before most of America did.
To this day (or so Thomas Sowell claims) Singapore avoids “anti discrimination” laws – as they know what such laws lead to (de facto quotas).
Indeed, having lived and worked in both Singapore and Malaysia, Singapore is a genuinely multicultural society because it is racially neutral, albeit predominantly Hokkien Chinese.
Malaysia is far more racially segregated with the majority of government jobs going to the ethnic Malay, private industry being run by the Chinese and Indians providing lower-skilled labour.
The Reid Commission back in the late 50’s providing the basis for this spurious Malays first bullshit.
There has been bloodshed and rioting in the past over this and their will be the same in the future.
The state is quite oppressive in Singapore.
Male homosexuality is illegal.
The state uses corporal punishment.
A British journalist was jailed a few years ago for criticising the judicial system.
Hardly a libertarian’s paradise.
I quite like that swimming pool on top of the Marina Bay hotel which looks out over the skyscrapers.
>seceded in the early 1960s
No it didn’t. Singapore was expelled from Malaysia.
I worked there for about three weeks, two years ago. I was amazed at how well all the different races got along, how much it cost to register a car ($10,000/year), how much housing costs, and how many kilometers the average taxicab had on the odometer (800,000 or so). Oh, and I had my first Singapore Sling there; wasn’t impressed…
I agree with Pete, post at 12.15pm.
Singapore is highly authoritarian.
Some aspects of the country are good, but for libertarians? That’s a bit of a surprise.
I note with interest the positive comment above about Singapore refusing to open its borders.
I am not a hard-core libertarian and I think the pure libertarian idea of open borders is both ludicrous and dangerous.
You might say that libertarians support open borders when all countries are equally libertarian, (or whatever the pure policy is) but few people hear the second part.
I think the bigger issue on closed/open borders is whether there are artificial incentives created that encourage immigration and emigration.
If you have a right to freely emigrate to a nation, but there’s no corresponding obligation upon the existing population to give you ‘free’ food and shelter that the problem would solve itself.
Singapore is no libertarian paradise, but there’s a certain value in knowing exactly what you are, what you can and can’t do, and what you aren’t getting yourself into. Countries with a far higher commitment to ‘personal freedom’ and ‘democratic principles’ aren’t exactly covering themselves with glory at the moment.
Absent the laws against homosexuality, there are times where the US looks less free.
Two questions come to mind:
1. what is the big deal with an economics graduate having a liberal arts background?
2. what is a Singapore Sling?
Google settled the 2nd question for me.
Now, can somebody help me with the 1st?
WRT Pete’s complaints about Singapore:
Male homosexuality is illegal.
That is very oppressive for a small minority of the population, but they are still free to emigrate.
Less oppressive, but for a much larger number of people, is that pornography is illegal (or so i am told).
Even more worrying to me is that chewing gum is illegal: i need it for my teeth.
The state uses corporal punishment.
Speaking for myself, i’d rather have corporal punishment than rot in jail.
A British journalist was jailed a few years ago for criticising the judicial system.
Can’t comment about that without knowing the facts.
With freedom comes responsibility. Some countries are not keen on freedom but are keen on responsibility. But as a side effect economic liberty has followed. If you are forced to save for your pension, for example, you will not feel tempted to cry out for state aid in your old age. In the west we have shed many responsibilities and so, like children, look to the state for help, and do not miss the freedom we had to exercise those responsibilities.
Singapore is lovely. In fact, I think it is not possible to make a fascist police state any nicer.
And whatever I think of the government of Singapore, I think Singaporean banks are probably some of the safest places on earth to put my money in at the moment, in the sense that once my money is there, it isn’t very likely to be stolen by a government or governments.
It’s actually more of a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ thing. It’s one law that is never enforced here. There are many local homosexuals who live their own lives the way they want it.
Again, another law that is rarely enforced.
Selling chewing gum is illegal; chewing it is not. So you can bring in a number for your own personal use. Some Singaporeans often cross the Causeway to Johor to buy gum. It’s become more of a novelty to bring back home for friends and family from overseas though.
And those conducting the punishment are very well trained in their craft. I’d add that there’re medical personnel on hand to determine just how much the person punished can take and to provide medical aid after the event. ‘Humane’ punishment may be an oxymoron, but I can’t think of anyway to describe it.
Our judicial system is flawed in the sense that it is still very much controlled by the ruling party. And the PAP uses the judiciary extensively to pound opponents into bankruptcy and submission.
“No it did not secede – it was expelled”.
If only Texas (and South Dakota and…..) could be expelled by the United States, that would be great for the people of Texas and the other States expelled (at least if they could solve the defence problem).
Male homosexual acts – I believe they should be legal.
Censorship – I am against it.
But what is this hostility to corporal punishment?
There is nothing un libertarian about corporal punishment – it used to be used in the Isle of Man.
Nor is there anything wrong with capital punishment either.
Libertarianism is not modern “liberalism”.
Why should every punishment be fines (no real punishment for the rich) or prison – i.e. being raped for years (at least if we mean American prisons).
Surely a thrashing is more humane. And it is a lot less expensive than prison.
John Jay’s idea that prisons would “reform” people has proved to be nonsense (ditto his idea about state schools).
That American tourist who went around smashing up the cars of other people (for kicks) got exactly what he deserved in Singapore.