A selective focus on human rights.

[Freighter]

Cool = )

So with that, Singapore is not as bad as people make it out to be.

Though I do have concerns with the arresting people on suspicion alone thing, anything else you have mentioned doesn't sound horrible.

The arrest based on a suspicion bothers me because just because one person feels someone is suspicious, it doesn't mean they really are. Suspicion without proof or evidence can be subjective based on the persons beliefs or judgement. Prejudice can be a cause for suspicion. Arresting someone because "they look like a criminal" concerns me.

But there may be a lot more to it than i'm making it out to be. There may be restrictions on arresting people based on suspicion alone.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, it boggles my mind how violent groups like these are allowed to continue function.

The president has to satisfied that it's necessary for the purposes of national security or public order for it to go forth, it's not like the police can just detain someone just because they themselves think something is suspicious.

[Kathandira]

The president has to satisfied that it's necessary for the purposes of national security or public order for it to go forth, it's not like the police can just detain someone just because they themselves think something is suspicious.

I think that is where the understanding is coming from. I think people believe that the police can come and knock down your door if they suspect that you may have committed a crime, no matter how big or small. If this is really more so about national offenses, not just like someone stealing something small from a store, then I see no difference between that and what the U.S.'s Federal Government can do if they deem it necessary.

[Freighter]

I think that is where the understanding is coming from. I think people believe that the police can come and knock down your door if they suspect that you may have committed a crime, no matter how big or small. If this is really more so about national offenses, not just like someone stealing something small from a store, then I see no difference between that and what the U.S.'s Federal Government can do if they deem it necessary.

Yeah, you're not going to have the president think it's necessary if they think you steal something. Unless you plan some act of subversion, terrorist acts, have ties to extremist movements(jihadist, communist, race supremacy and such movements) and such it's exceedingly unlikely you would ever be the target of such a measure.

[Kathandira]

Yeah, you're not going to have the president think it's necessary if they think you steal something. Unless you plan some act of subversion, terrorist acts, have ties to extremist movements(jihadist, communist, race supremacy and such movements) and such it's exceedingly unlikely you would ever be the target of such a measure.

Yeah, I definitely think this all was a misunderstanding of how strict Singapore really is to the common citizen. It actually doesn't sound bad at all. Maybe even more similar to the U.S. than people think it is.

When talking about getting in trouble for speaking badly about other people based on their race, culture, or religion. How does that work? Is this like jail time? Just a fine? How does that normally turn out? And to what extent do you have to be speaking badly about people to even get in trouble?

Like, can I say something like, "I hate -enter type of person here-, they are all trash!" and get arrested?

Also, sorry for all these questions. I know you are not the cultural representative to Singapore. But you are the only person I have access to who lives there. And i'd rather listen and learn than to make false assumptions.

[Freighter]

When talking about getting in trouble for speaking badly about other people based on their race, culture, or religion. How does that work? Is this like jail time? Just a fine? How does that normally turn out? And to what extent do you have to be speaking badly about people to even get in trouble?

Like, can I say something like, "I hate -enter type of person here-, they are all trash!" and get arrested?

Yes, you could get arrested for that, you would receive fines(Up to S$5,000) for it but likely not prison if it's a first offense. More serious cases can and likely will lead to imprisonment, the maximum is 3 years for first offenders. If you're a repeat offender you can get 5.

[Kathandira]

Yes, you could get arrested for that, you would receive fines for it but likely not prison. More serious cases can and likely will lead to imprisonment, the maximum is 3 years.

Really not as bad as I was thinking.

I would take a fine over losing my job. In a different thread we are discussing a woman who was fired over unprofessional activity on Facebook. She will be losing her salary, likely upwards of $60,000 a year. I'll take a fine over losing my lively hood.

[Freighter]

Really not as bad as I was thinking.

I would take a fine over losing my job. In a different thread we are discussing a woman who was fired over unprofessional activity on Facebook. She will be losing her salary, likely upwards of $60,000 a year. I'll take a fine over losing my lively hood.

Eeh, the employer could still get rid of you for public image reasons.

[Kathandira]

Eeh, the employer could still get rid of you for public image reasons.

That's fair.

[Nitro Fun]

Though I do have concerns with the arresting people on suspicion alone thing, anything else you have mentioned doesn't sound horrible.

They use corporal punishment against many criminals in the form of caning...

[Kathandira]

They use corporal punishment against many criminals in the form of caning...

I'd need examples. The crimes, and the criminal history of the person.

[Nitro Fun]

I'd need examples. The crimes, and the criminal history of the person.

Why does any of this matter? I'd link you pictures of what people look like after caning but I'd get infracted.

Here's one case: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapor...n-16-years-ago
Here's a case that caught international attention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay

Michael Peter Fay (born May 30, 1975) is a US citizen who was the subject of international attention in 1994 when he was sentenced to six strokes of the cane in Singapore for theft and vandalism at age 18

They also execute drug traffickers. Though, taiwan has capital punishment for it as well.

[Macaquerie]

I'd need examples. The crimes, and the criminal history of the person.

[Kathandira]

Guys, I think we need to clear up some things here. Human rights, as a concept, is the right to people live with some basic dignity and freedom, that's all (at least it's how I understand it).
It doesn't matter if some leaders would use the term (wrongly) to help them to achieve their geopolitical goals, because that's a completly different story and have nothing to do with human rights (the concept). It's just politicians playing their games.

So, I think we should learn to criticize the intentions and the hipocrisy we might think that would exist behind the bad use of the term, not the term itself (that would sound fallacious).

It would be like saying: "gynecology is basically an instrument for doctors molest their patients."
Well, it might be true for some pervert doctors, but have nothing to do with the concept of gynecology.



I liked the thoughts you brought here. But instead of saying "freedom is a lie", I would say something like "freedom can be relative according to the life experience of each individual". I mean for someone who was born as a slave, freedom could be just wake up a single day of the week without being tortured or without forced labor.

Another thing, if I understood right, what you described as "universal freedom" would be some kind of absolute anarchy. I also agree with you that an absolute anarchy would be hard to implement in practice (if not impossible).
The main problem here would be "freedom overlaping", my freedom could (or would) conflict with your freedom.
We could use the same exemple about slavery: some people would claim the freedom to have slaves, while others would claim the freedom to not be slaves. That's why some limits need to be discussed and established. The usual consensus is that your freedom ends at the moment you start harming the freedom of other people (famous quote: "your freedom ends where my nose begins").

Another problem is that there can be other forms of "slavery" or "freedom harm". E. g. ,in feudalism, debt bondage was common and "acceptable". Sometimes, things can be more subtle and/or subjective, that's where the discussion gets more complexity.

Anyway, debates like these are great, keep it going. /thumbs_up

I really like everything you expanded on here. I think you understood exactly where I was coming from, and worded it far more elaborately. *high five*

[Mormolyce]

Pretty much. I can think of some movements in the US that would be on the end of harsh penalties if they had existed here. Like the KKK, Black panthers, antifa.

If they'd applied harsh enough penalties to the KKK, the Black Panthers and "Antifa" such as it is wouldn't have needed to exist in the first place :P

- - - Updated - - -

Cool = )

So with that, Singapore is not as bad as people make it out to be.

Though I do have concerns with the arresting people on suspicion alone thing, anything else you have mentioned doesn't sound horrible.

The arrest based on a suspicion bothers me because just because one person feels someone is suspicious, it doesn't mean they really are. Suspicion without proof or evidence can be subjective based on the persons beliefs or judgement. Prejudice can be a cause for suspicion. Arresting someone because "they look like a criminal" concerns me.

But there may be a lot more to it than i'm making it out to be. There may be restrictions on arresting people based on suspicion alone.

To put it bluntly, Singapore's authoritarianism is alien to Western democracies and their overbearing policies would be incompatible with the legal system here.

Many Asian countries are very collectivist by Western standards. You are a cog in a machine, your personal feelings are irrelevant, and the state is supreme. That is how it is perceived here.

[Macaquerie]

Many Asian countries are very collectivist by Western standards. You are a cog in a machine, your personal feelings are irrelevant, and the state is supreme. That is how it is perceived here.

Eh that's a bit of misconception I think. Asian countries want to portray themselves as collectivist and paint this image of a harmonious society, but the reality is usually far more chaotic. As it turns out, running a society on vague notions of Eastern traditions and values rather than definitive principles like rule of law and respect for human rights tends to be pretty messy.

[Mormolyce]

Eh that's a bit of misconception I think. Asian countries want to portray themselves as collectivist and paint this image of a harmonious society, but the reality is usually far more chaotic. As it turns out, running a society on vague notions of Eastern traditions and values rather than definitive principles like rule of law and respect for human rights tends to be pretty messy.

Yeah I'm just pointing out the generality, I realise it's actually much more complex than that in reality and that each country varies a lot. And below the national level as well.