megalon43 t1_iugn44e wrote
Reply to comment by notsocoolnow in Richard Branson declines invitation to debate death penalty with Shanmugam, says TV format 'turns serious debate into spectacle' by chronoistriggered
Agreed. Did you see the paragraph 17 in the MHA statement though? It’s actually a fucking use of whataboutism with a bit of wolf warrior flavour. It’s fucking cringey.
another-masked-hero t1_iugnyww wrote
I’m so confused by this whole document, is it common in Singapore to publish this? It looks at the beginning like it’s meant to be a demonstration but in fact there are logical fallacies and absence of proofs.
notsocoolnow t1_iugqd5b wrote
It happens quite a bit. The release is targeted at Singaporean readers, so there's a lot of political dogwhistles that would make no sense to a foreigner but trigger emotional responses in locals.
In the Singapore subreddit we post these and pick them apart all the time, and this isn't even the first press release for this specific event. To be fair, the recent high-profile drug execution has attracted unusually high attention to our draconian drug laws.
another-masked-hero t1_iugqyqe wrote
Thank you, well to give credit to your system it’s great that these documents get published. Though in this particular case it seems silly to respond to a random jet setter. But presenting the reasoning in such detail is a great approach in general and if it were not so full of fallacies I would really enjoy reading these.
megalon43 t1_iugpfsy wrote
Singapore used to be really clean and professional with stuff like this, but we have really gone full clown over the past decade.
Edit: adding on, Richard Branson is just a random posh fuck, not a U.K. official. I seriously don’t see the whole point of the whataboutisms attacking the U.K.
another-masked-hero t1_iugqq5t wrote
If done properly (i.e. correctly argumented) I think this would be awesome.
But it seems very flawed. This could be my ignorance but paragraphs 13-17 are logically flawed or suspicious (for example paragraph 12-13: accusation that there are biased in the system, then contradicting “proof” Is that the system itself cleared itself of wrongdoings). I then stopped reading because it seemed like a waste of time.
notsocoolnow t1_iugq3qp wrote
Course I did. Like China's version of wolf-warrior diplomacy, it's for domestic, not foreign consumption.
The Opium War reference is entirely expected, because you see in my post where I mentioned the Chinese cultural hatred of drugs? It's because of the Opium War. For any non-Singaporeans reading this, drugs are a symbol of colonial oppression and capitalist evil. Younger Singaporeans aren't quite as crazy about this, but the PAP's core voter base, senior citizens, were heavily indoctrinated into hating drugs due to their grandparents ranting about the evils of the Opium War.
To be fair, it's not an unjustified sentiment. But it's become a dogwhistle for Chinese conservatives whenever Britain (and for that matter, any of the 8 nations - Germany, Japan, Russia, Britain, France, the United States, Italy, and Austria-Hungary, who conquered China so that Britain could continue to sell opium) tries to support drug legalization or for that matter any kind of humanitarian movement, as if a country's citizens are to blame for the sins of its past forever.
Scores of angry Chinese grandparents will read that and cheer for no reason other than the image of our "scrappy" government standing up to the big bad West.
Exotic-Amphibian-655 t1_iuhkoe0 wrote
Their source for the guy not being mentally incompetent is “facts of the case.” It’s made to look like a legal document but would be laughed out of court if filed by anyone other than a former president.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments