Can Singapore be described in terms of a Foucauldian “disciplinary society” or a Deleuzian “control society”? Deleuze proposed that we are moving from Foucault's “society of discipline” to a “society of control” (1992: 3). Unlike the “disciplinary society” where subjects progress from one “molding” institution to another (schools, colleges, factories, offices, etc.), a “control society” is characterized by constant modulation (Wise, 2002: 32). According to Rose, control operates by affiliating subjects to a variety of practices that, by design, encourage adherence to certain norms in modern liberal societies (2000: 325). This is what Deleuze meant by “society of control”. Best believes that we must adopt the Deleuzian concept of the “control society” to explain the societies that emerge in the context of increased surveillance and network capacity enabled by new ICTs (2010: 9). On the other hand, Hardt and Negri propose this: The "control society" is simply an "intensification and generalization of disciplinary normalizing apparatuses", which now extend beyond the institutions that initiated them and into networks fluctuating (2000: 23). Similarly, Munro believes that Foucault's disciplinary mechanism needs to be updated to bring it into line with the capabilities of modern technologies, not replaced (2000: 693). It is necessary to distinguish between unconscious social control and social control in relation to the institution, the latter being the planned management of a socialized human activity (Lianos, 2003: 415). Institutional control is an integral part of specific activities, is generally bureaucratic and “is part of both the logic and the outcome of these activities” (Lianos, 2003: 415). Lianos uses the example of...... middle of paper ...... Google offers "free" storage space, as well as other useful privileges and tools, in exchange for personal information it could use to market targeted products to its users (Andrejevic, 2007: 296). People submitted their information to Google and Facebook not out of fear or a sense of duty, but so they could take advantage of the benefits offered. Although Singaporeans value their privacy, they are willing to surrender this privacy in exchange for financial rewards or convenience (Hui et al., 2007: 27). These authors also report growing dissatisfaction with the increasing amounts of information demanded by websites. However, it was the quantity of information requested, rather than the sensitivity of the information, that had a significant influence on compliance (Hui et al., 2007: 27). This certainly fits with the “incentive model” proposed by Whitaker. (1999: 141).