I posted this on my FB, just copypaste here:

An article typical of The Economist - the West loves to criticise Singapore. Yet the author and the commenters who, repeatedly, and so vehemently argue that Singapore needs 'freedom of speech', leave out critical details (as any article from the West does when reporting on Singapore) - it was NOT the government who incited charges against Yee. It was a group of some thirty people, which included his own mother. What would they say to that?

Secondly, Yee was given several chances to out - he somehow chose a jail term over probation (what for? An act of 'martyrdom' perhaps???). He was released on a bail amount of $20 000, which he promptly wasted, by breaking the bail terms.

A few more quirks related to this whole matter that some may have forgotten or overlooked: Yee labelled his bailor as a molester, then promised to write a detailed apology in three days and then reneged on his promise. He invited media reporters to a specific location promising an interview and did not appear, stating that the Singapore media were stupid. He continued to make the same posts on his blog despite being ordered by court not to. He laces everything he says with profanity; he uses bombastic and complicated words in an attempt to make his fundamentally flawed arguments sound more eloquent; endeavours to correct others' (Mr Vincent Law's son, remember?) grammar while his own is imperfect; and most importantly, has a high propensity to lie and give out false truths.

Frankly, I think he does need a mental check-up.

Economist, get your act right and report fairly like the reputed periodical that you are thought to be.