Singapore executes transit travellers with personal amounts of drugs and men with long hair. Not my picture of freedom, no matter what their economy is doing.
A ban from the 60s refused entry to hippies, it fell out of use and was removed from the books early in the 1990s.
At no point in time were Led Zeppelin, the Bee Gees, Cliff Richard, Kitarō or other long haired men transiting Singapore during that period (1960-1990) executed.
Like the USofA, freedom in Singapore is f(wealth).
Legally, justice wise, it's still rooted in English common law from it's time as a colony prior to the British getting over run by Japanese on bicycles.
Even its class bigotry is rooted in colonial British attitudes.
It's wild watching people damn them for being authoritarian, yet by various polls 77% of Singapore want the death penalty for drug traffickers. This is high enough that i.e. in USA it would definitely be popular enough to pass an amendment to civil rights to guarantee execution even if the freedom from jeopardy to death penalty had been prior enshrined.
When "authoritarianism" used to secure economic freedom, "authoritarianism" bad. When authoritarianism used to stop the majority from executing drug traffickers, authoritarianism ... good?
Which polls? Political elections? Professional polls from experts? Or some random poll on the streets from some TV-Station or influencer? People also answer very different depending on the prospected outcome, thus the "seriousness" of their answer.
> This is high enough that i.e. in USA it would definitely be popular enough to pass an amendment to civil rights to guarantee execution even if the freedom from jeopardy to death penalty had been prior enshrined.
And legal system in Singapore works like USA? This seems like a strange claim.
>Which polls? Political elections? Professional polls from experts? Or some random poll on the streets from some TV-Station or influencer?
All the above. Political elections of people that are pro death penalty, professional polls commissioned by the MHA (and done continually in separate years), and also you can hear them from people on the streets if that's your preferred way.
>People also answer very different depending on the prospected outcome, thus the "seriousness" of their answer.
It's not simply a "prospected" outcome, the people in the polls literally are living in a country actively doing it and has been doing it for quite awhile. The information is out there to see what they're getting.
>And legal system in Singapore works like USA? This seems like a strange claim.
This is your fifth consecutive interrogative cross-examination question which is clearly aimed at presenting a counter-narrative without having to use the courage of making any assertions of your own, I only note here that your "question" implies a straw man that I've presented they work the same. But if you insist, the requirement of amending Singapore constitution is easily met in the context of the death penalty for drugs (2/3 MP + possibly 2/3 national referendum), were it that their civil rights were prior codified there to prohibit it.
Of course not. But show me a good system where 23% minority of the people can define civil rights in contradiction to the 77% and you will be better off, because that's the only way you can answer my prior question with inconsistencies presented.
Sure. It's any system where the 77% want something really bad, and the 23% don't. For example, a system where 77% of people want drug traffickers executed and 23% don't. That's a system where listening to the 23% is better than listening to the 77%.
A system like this cannot remain stable, and because it's unstable, it is not good.
