[^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_(Temporary_Provis...
[^2]: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/my-views-on-...
You can keep your 1000 different Instagrammable spots, I'd rather go some place that is a little more into democracy and reasonable policing.
Policing SOPs in East Asia (incl. Singapore) is different than policing SOPs in the west. Typically people are warned, often multiple times, that they are in danger of experiencing the less kind side of local law. Once the switch is flipped, this gentle hand becomes an iron fist.
I will bet dollars to donuts that the person who was held without charge for decades (mentioned above) was completely not surprised that they were severely punished. They may not have liked the punishment, they may not have agreed with the opaque process, but they almost certainly can’t say that they didn’t know it was coming.
If someone warns you that they're going to murder you if you post another 5 comments on HackerNews, and keeps you up-to-date with every comment you make, nothing about those warnings makes the subsequent murder after your 5th comment more reasonable than if they hadn't given those warnings.
Being notified that you are or have been breaking the law and being told that there will be severe consequences if you don’t stop seems reasonable to me.
It may not be how we do it in the west, but it’s hard to argue that this can’t be perceived as reasonable.
Let me give you an example that opened my eyes. It’s one of many, but it’s one that you may have heard of.
Michal Fay was caned in Singapore in the 1990s. I was so put off by this, that I swore never to go to Singapore. I thought that the punishment far exceeded that which could be justified by the crimes he committed (petty stuff like vandalizing cars).
Then, within a 6 month period, I met two families who lived as expatriates in Singapore at the same time, one in the same community.
They all said that MF was a pariah. They also both said that he and his family had been given gradually escalating warnings over a short period of time, with the next to last one being “MF needs to leave Singapore now”, and the last one being “you (his family) and MF need to leave Singapore now”. Apparently the job was too good, so the family stayed. We know the rest of the story.
A decade later, I met a woman who worked in Singapore at the time, and she expressed similar sentiments.
While I still think the punishment was excessive (even reduced to 4 lashings instead of 6), I lost all pity for MF and his family. They knew what was coming, and they either didn’t understand the culture they were in, or they didn’t believe what they were told.
I’ve see similar types of policing (with warnings and an explanation of potential consequences) happen in Japan, China, and South Korea. IMHO, it works the way they want it to (mostly as an early deterrent, with very little prosecution actually taking place). This is one reason why there is such a high success rates of criminal convictions in places like Japan — if they make the effort to book you, they have overwhelming evidence, usually collected when the criminal has been warned.
We may not like the laws, we may not like the punishments, but we shouldn’t be surprised by the outcomes.
> If someone warns you that they're going to murder you if you post another 5 comments on HackerNews, and keeps you up-to-date with every comment you make, nothing about those warnings makes the subsequent murder after your 5th comment more reasonable than if they hadn't given those warnings.
Great strawman.
Posting on HN is not against the law (at least where I am).
If my scenario were law, it would still be entirely unreasonable.
Besides, law is an entirely fluid concept in general, including in Singapore, but really anywhere, to varying degrees. The US has recently been making this incredibly clear for even the blindest to see, but it was already the case before.
jb?
e: oh, Johor Bahru, interesting
but that's just an assumption based on stories in the good old Soviet Union.
With the growing fascism all over the world we will see that kind of thing more often.
> This trial marks the first attempt in Britain to treat political property damage as equivalent to terrorism - an unprecedented and dangerous expansion of state power. Under the current Labour government, many defendants will have spent nearly two years behind bars before even standing trial.
https://www.cage.ngo/articles/trial-begins-for-first-six-of-...
"Detention without trial" is a thing in the UK, as well as the US, Canada, and many (most?) other countries, even those considered non-authoritarian or whatever, for lots of crimes, not just politically convenient ones. This isn't a new thing because of growing fascism, it's literally the distinction between "jail" and "prison", or what the bail system is for. Court systems don't have the capacity to try everyone immediately upon arrest, and in various ways, look to balance that with the right to a speedy trial, the right to a presumption of innocence, justice, and public safety.
(I'm not making any judgement on the balance Britain is striking in this particular case, which sounds bad!)
But what OP is pointing out as problematic in Singapore's case is 1) detention without even being charged with a crime, which is what the UK government website linked above says is forbidden beyond a relatively short time frame and 2) the absence of any kind of a right to a speedy trial.