But while Singapore feels more or less like the west, China most definitely does not, and the gap grows wider year after year.
Seems like they could start with some more personal freedoms for the Uighurs fairly quickly if the goal was that magnanimous.
(1993) "Disneyland with the Death Penalty", by William Gibson:
Could this not equally be applied to America?
The US has freedom of the press, Singapore does not. It really is that simple.
I worry about my ability to enter Singapore after posting comments like this, which is a real concern that impacts my livelihood.
Additionally, I don't hate America but readily admit we have our faults.
Your statement about my travels, is equally inaccurate.
This was my observation about Monaco too.
If people were poor and fighting for opportunities in that hamlet they would call it authoritarian. But since it isn't and is free from adversity it is viewed favorably (and the poor people can live across the street in France). Just a fascinating look into relative morality, or masquerading disdain of certain forms of government as a moral issue while ignoring others, as opposed to just the authoritarian nature of a particular government.
that's because freedom of press and similar rights are a uniquely western phenomenon that are --- despite what droves of its proponents will tell you --- derived from christian values that didn't and don't exist anywhere else.
Many in the broader region don't care about freedom of press, while also being poorly paid and uncomfortable. No placation of masses needed.
This is incorrect. Europe is quite unique in that since the advent of Christianity there has always existed a church separate from the state acting as a counterbalance thereto, and offering an alternative foundation of moral authority. Despite this, brutal suppression of all dissent and criticism of the political structure was almost always supported by the Church, which generally allied itself with dominant regimes (i.e. feudal rulers).
It wasn't until the flurry of neoclassicist-inspired philosophising of the Enlightenment and the emergence of monied elites in a position to pressure the state to grant them rights that said rights were slowly granted. They often couched their arguments in terms of Christian doctrine, but this is just the incidental result of the dominance of the Christian religion in society at that time.
I wouldn't say that it's entirely incidental. Christianity is compatible with individualism in a way that some other religions are not.
This is not quite correct. Christian values would be a strict theocracy with no freedom of the press.
Liberal values descend from a robust view of agency, eg humanism which is more or less incompatible with strict interpretations of Christianity. Compatible with deism though.
Two very different messages.
Love your neighbor and judge others as you would judge yourself.
Uighurs are Turkic people who are genetically different from ethnic Chinese. Transplant recipients must have similar genes in their immune systems to those of the donor. Otherwise, the body will reject the organ. This is also why blacks have a harder time finding organ donors: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2013/01/21/blacks...
Also, what kind of evidence would be sufficient for you? A video footage of harvesting from one of the camps?
I'm done here too. Thanks for the constructive discussion.
To be fair, the chinese call it de-radicalization/re-education centers, which they set up after a few extremist separatist attacks which killed hundreds of people. And as for the organs, much of the west ( especially in europe ) take people's organs without their explicit consent (it's called opt-out organ "donation".
> Maybe if they had the scale to do so they would, but that's not really the question when it comes to public opinion.
Nonsense. It's called political expediency and the trade war. A decade ago, when china was our "friend", we were talking about "chimerica" and praising their handling of muslim extremists in xinjiang and china's help with our war on "muslim terrorists". A decade later and we are in the midst of a trade war and the propaganda changes.
I feel like equating the forcible harvesting of organs to opt out organ donation is extremely disingenuous.
I also remember the propaganda about iraqi soldiers killing babies in hospitals which turned out to be a manufactured lie.
I'm sure the chinese government does a lot of bad things, like every major government, but the 24/7 ridiculous "news" we are getting now, is just propaganda.
I'm not a psychic, but I predicted the following when the trade war began.
1. "organ harvesting" ( to be fair I mistakenly assumed it would be tied to tibetans or the falun gong )
2. hong kong protest ( just like during the pivot to asia 5 years ago )
3. "chinese spies" or "politicians" magically defecting with outlandish stories
4. "international" awards ( nobel peace, think tank awards, whatever ) being awarded to politically expedient people
And if things really escalate, then I'll make another prediction - yellow peril style propaganda. And of course, the chinese will also escalate their propaganda.
If the PRC wants to be respected, they could publish information and allow journalists in instead of lying.
I have no doubt these countries have done horrible things, but they do not deserve to be invaded and subjected to millions of civilian deaths.
Weird.
I find that in Western reporting, the actual issues involved in Xinjiang are not discussed at all. Instead, it's presented as if the Chinese government had a problem with Muslims. The entire issue of separatism is rarely mentioned, nor is the fact that the largest Muslim group in China is actually the Hui (rather than the Uyghurs). The media is not really trying to inform the public about the situation and underlying conflicts (e.g., the East Turkestan movement), and instead painting a vastly dumbed-down, cartoonish picture that serves other propaganda interests.
"All Hui-run nursery schools, child care centers and religious schools were forcibly closed in Ningxia and across Yunnan and Henan provinces, which are also home to a large number of Hui Muslims."
"Imams in Henan and Ningxia must now attend monthly training sessions that can last for days. There, imams told NPR, they are taught Communist ideology and state ethnic policy and discuss Xi Jinping's speeches. Imams must then pass an exam testing their ideological knowledge in order to renew their license each year, mirroring how the government issues licenses to imams in the Xinjiang region."
I've just moved back to China now and I would have to say that China does the opposite of embracing western values. They go with, well, "the Chinese way". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21602206
Weird combination of statements. It gives the impression (though you probably mean something different that anyone not liking it is 1) "left" 2) not part of Western values
Left vs right is pretty useless distinction anyway. Someone who is considered "left" in US is IMO very much "right" in Netherlands. Plus some parties on the right or left differ greatly on how they see things. E.g. not every "left" party will align with what someone agrees with; else there wouldn't be multiple parties. Those parties differ more greatly than "a little bit left" vs "a lot left" (with some exceptions).
Further, I reject the notion that someone who is left wouldn't be able to stand staying in Singapore for more than a week. Though biggest problem is that after a week there's not much to do (for anyone reading along, all the Singaporean colleagues completely agree with me on this!) :-P
Anyway I was talking more about the "liveable" aspects of Singapore. Maybe not a week as a tourist but say living longer than a month there. The night life is pretty boring, the underground scene had dissipated in the 2000s and the art scene is not at all vibrant (though things are gradually improving). I would say it doesn't enjoy lots of things liberal-ish cities (like Berlin, NY, etc) enjoy. But there is stability and comfort. It's just that people that is more liberal-ish would ultimately leave the country and live overseas, or if circumstances allow they would start an NGO or something and try to improve things to have more freedom of expressions, more social acceptance for LGBT, etc. But ultimately it is a very conservative place with things like homophobia and an embedded racism. And that's the point I'm trying to make.
Because that is illegal in Singapore.
Seems very modern and forward thinking to me to make an entire lifestyle punishible by law.
Singapore attracts people like you, who are willing to overlook the glaring injustice because it is "clean and conservative".
Wake up.
You can read my comment in response to bkor's. In no way I was trying to glorify Singapore or the authoritarian nature of things.
I actually left Singapore and moved back to China because there are more acceptance and appreciation for liberalism in China than Singapore. And more grey areas to navigate around too. And I'm one of those people that believe in making a difference in China. Making a difference in Singapore is much harder and requires more resources.
I have a few friends that tried to run some form of NGO in Singapore. One of them did a project called Make It Share It (https://www.facebook.com/makeitshareit2017/) to promote art and freedom of expression. The Project closed down a year plus later due to lack of funding because it was entirely self-funded and they didn't give too much thoughts on the self-sustainability part. I would say it did manage to bring some positive impact to the society a lil but in a very limited way. Afterwards the founders left Singapore and now they got settled down in Berlin.
This is a legitimate question, not sure why the down votes.
In truth a common Western position is that China and Singapore are not equivalent because despite its problems, Singapore still commits fewer human rights violations than China. This position is based on extensive research and observation by multiple NGOs which rank countries by the severity of their human rights violations, as a starter point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
I note from your HN profile that you have a number of professional connections to China. Perhaps it is in your personal interest to support the Chinese state?
Given the other details of your background, it looks like you've probably benefited from living under regimes with much better human rights records than China's. I would encourage you to have compassion for people who are not born with the right to free expression, the right to practice their own religion, etc. and to recognize that China and Singapore are by no means the same.
Not everyone has political motives! I am also not picking sides for or against anyone, unlike what you seem to want to do and what you are trying to paint me as doing. The world isn't black or white.
All that however is immaterial to the observation that you've committed the fallacy of whataboutism, seemingly to discredit critics of China's human rights violations, which you've labeled as political - please consider that for many people the right to not have their organs harvested or be force fed pork is more than just politics.
Respectfully I think this is a poor look for a business leader and graduate of America's elite universities. Or for anyone.
That country is an authoritarian nanny state disguised as Disney Land.
I have visited many times and have lots of friends there. Nobody cares about freedom of the press because they are well paid and comfortable.
They have truly figured out how to placate the masses.