The Economist continues to think Singaporeans should be like the west

Not the first time The Economist tries to impose its western liberal values onto Singaporeans.

Why The Economist continues to think Singaporeans should be like the west is beyond us.

On Mar 30 2017, The Economist published the article, titled “An outspoken Singaporean blogger wins asylum in America”, which talked about how a US immigration judge granted Yee asylum, and the reasons for doing so. The article cited the judge’s reasons, including that while the blogger was legally prosecuted under Singapore law, his prosecution served a “nefarious purpose – namely, to stifle political dissent”.

And before that, on Mar 17, the Economist published the article, titled Grumble and be Damned, which alleged that while the Singapore Government has said it welcomes criticism, its critics still suffer. Specifically, the article cited the case of blogger Han Hui Hui and two other activists who were involved in a protest over the management of the Central Provident Fund (CPF) at the Speakers’ Corner in 2014.

In their latest article on Singapore, “Rules are thicker than blood” (January 13th), they chided Singaporean family norms as “Victorian” after a judge ruled that adoption would not be allowed between two men, when a gay couple paid $200,000 to an American firm to help them conceive abroad and appealed for the child to be a Singaporean citizen.

On all three occasions, the economist deliberately omitted important points to paint a negative picture of Singapore

Amos Yee was not prosecuted for blogging against the government, he was an idiot who propagated hate speech towards Muslims and Christians

Han Hui Hui was not prosecuted for lobbying against the government either, she was charged for disrupting the charity event for special needs children at the Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park, by leading the rowdy protest which she organised without approval from the National Parks Board.

In the latest article, the gay couple was well informed before hand of their consequences and yet they persisted.

On all three occasions, The Economist quite disingenuously positioned them as victims.

Below were some of the sharp words Ms Foo Chi Hsia, the High Commissioner for Singapore in London used to rebut them

On Free Speech:

“No country gives an absolute right to free speech, Singapore does not claim to be an example for others, but we do ask to be allowed to work out a system that is best for ourselves.”
On Amos Yee:

“Singapore’s court judgments, including on Mr Yee’s case, are reasoned and published, and can stand scrutiny by anyone, including The Economist.”
This was her latest reply to the statement that Singapore has Victorian family values

“Our values and social norms on what makes for a stable family unit are conservative and shape the government’s policies and rules on adoption. They differ from today’s Western norms, which are historically recent and by no means uncontested, even in Western societies. Singaporeans will determine their own pace of any change in family values.

A push for rapid social change, especially on contentious moral issues, risks polarising society and producing unintended results. In Singapore nearly all children are born and raised in wedlock, starkly different from what now happens in the West. We make no claim to know which values are best for every society. The Economist may think Singapore is quaint and old-fashioned, but time will tell if a cautious approach to social change is wiser.”

Like WTF. You all think you still colonial masters ah?

economist1