I was referring to the social norms around criticism of authority. There is a much greater expectation of tact and constructiveness compared to the West.
The Singaporean government is doing the wrong thing by executing this man, but GP's flippant remarks were not the way to express this.
> I was referring to the social norms around criticism of authority. There is a much greater expectation of tact and constructiveness compared to the West.
I've never been to Asia myself, but knowing some Asian people and knowing a little about Asian history i think you are wrong. Like everywhere else, Asia is filled with revolutionaries who despise authority and revolt in any way they can.
Just because some people respect authoritarian figures and their abuses of power doesn't mean everybody has to show "respect". I personally don't have any respect for most governments around this planet (including France/USA), because these governments don't have any respect for human lives and freedom.
I live in a country where it's illegal to criticize the police or insult the president. Some people live in a country where it's illegal to suggest the king may be wrong. People like you are just enforcing that kind of power dynamic which some of us are interested to dismantle in flames.
(Also worth noting: Asia is a BIG continent and you're making a huge generalization about billions of people... which i don't think holds at all)
It is pretty easy to criticize social policy like this in a vacuum but really the extremely hard stance regarding drug contraband in that region is at the very least understandable given the historical context.
A law passed in 1973 and amended in 1977 was based on the British use of force in China in the 19th century to sell opium?
Feels like a long bow, but go on, I'm listening.
The sources I can find state:
"Then Minister for Home Affairs and Education, Chua Sian Chin said (Sing., Parliamentary Debates, vol. 37, col. 34 (27 May 1977)) - unless drug trafficking and drug addiction [are] checked, they [will] threaten our national security and viability. To do this, both punitive and preventive measures must be taken. The [Misuse of Drugs] Act was thus amended to provide enhanced penalties for traffickers, including mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking and manufacturing”.
So I'm wondering what was going in Singapore in the 70s.
It isn't specific to Singapore, but the entire region. In the early 19th century there was huge demand for Asian goods in the west, which led to a huge trade disparity because China had little interest in western goods. The British East India Company was able to negate that through smuggling opium to such a degree that it was emptying the Chinese coffers and caused a drug abuse epidemic, which then forced China into conflict with Britain. This led to the Treaty of Nanking starting a trend of colonial subjugation and weakening of the Qing Empire and is considered the beginning of Century of Humiliation in China.
Then you have to take the additional context of how power coalesced in many of these Asian tiger economies through strong authoritarian governments during their modernization and independence. I do not think it is a stretch to think that other nations in the region, especially those with close proximity to China, or have large Chinese populations (like Singapore), saw how unbelievably poorly this went for China, which probably contributed to the extreme measures used to prevent recreational drug contraband from being used in their societies.
In South Korea today, you can be imprisoned for five years just for having any drugs in your system (follicle test) no matter where ingested & South Korean citizens can be punished for consuming drugs abroad where they would otherwise be legal:
Opium is important in the history of Singapore. The city was mainly developed for and by the opium trade, but also faced issues due to legal local consumption up to the 1940s. It's not what directly brought the draconian legislation in the 1970s, but it certainly contributed.
Fair enough. It's tone deaf and practically guaranteed to lead to zero change, but at least you - living comfortably in a country where you'll never have to deal with the real-world implications of harsh laws like this - get to feel good about being rude to someone on the internet.
