That was true in the 1990s, but not in the last 10 years where use of capital punishment has been consistently less than 10 persons per year, including foreign nationals (i.e. not "its population").
Conversely the USA has a much higher percentage of its population sitting in prison. I suspect many of those people would prefer a caning over the loss of many productive years of their life.
It's not meant to be a comparison. I am simply asking why most of this thread is celebrating a man that created a police state that is the model for Asia.
You made the comparison, you can't say it wasn't meant to be a comparison.
Strip away the jingoism, and I really don't see how the USA is any less of a police state than Singapore. From stop-and-frisk to civil forfeiture and the TSA, the United States is every bit a police state with just a thin outer layer of constitutional democracy.
I've lived in both countries for extended periods, and I know which I'd prefer to live in. (Though if we look at California in isolation, I might prefer that, but only for the nice weather and cheap cars.)
You can bitch about police corruption in Singapore -- rare as it is. The media isn't afraid to report, and the government isn't afraid to act.
And sure, you can bitch about it in the USA -- common as it is. Except the media doesn't care (unless you have particularly compelling video footage) and the government is too scared to act.
Are you serious? Here's an actual case of corruption at a government-linked org in Singapore: in particular, look how three people making claims that later turned out to entirely factual were sued into apologizing, and the bubble only burst when the NKF made the mistake of suing somebody even better-connected to the establishment.
Here in Singapore, you can bitch about it and not be jailed or murdered for it. We bitch about (everything) most of the time. We also have a healthy assumption that we are never going to be murdered in our lifetimes in Singapore, and that things do get better most of the time, which is more than can be said for America.
It's a country that has extremely low crime, and an amazing economy. Achieved with fewer resources and greater speed than any successful country in history.
Singapore has a different set of problems than the rest of the world. I think that's refreshing.
For what is worth, I'd rather be executed than to "live" in an American prison. The idea that solitary confinement occurs in a first world country is appalling and scary. Don't get me started on the things inmates and guards do to some people.
> For what is worth, I'd rather be executed than to "live" in an American prison.
Same. I'm not sure whether capital punishment should still be a thing, but anyone given a life sentence should have the option to choose death instead. Life in a supermax prison is deeply inhumane.
It takes a long time to execute people in the USA. Having an execution hanging over your head for 20 years probably makes prison much, much, much worse.
Yes, but it is often not imminent until you are old enough to not care anymore. You might die tomorrow in some freak accident, but you'll live today as if you aren't going to. In this case, ignorance is bliss.
Looking at figures in Wikipedia, compiled by Amnesty International, foreigners have been always in the minority, except for one year recently (2007) when two people out of three were foreigners. This became possible because the number of executions has dropped drastically since 1990's (from around 70 per year to around 3-7 per year; in 2010 it was zero). If the number is 1 and the one happens to be foreigner some year, then the foreigner rate will be 100 %.
Not quite, Wikipedia: "Trafficking in arms (Section 6) is a capital offence in Singapore. Under the Arms Offences Act, trafficking is defined as being in unlawful possession of more than two firearms."
Yes, but note that the offense is for unlawful possession of firearms, not lawful possession (though I imagine the conditions for lawful possession in Singapore are extremely restrictive).
Where I live (Finland) the ratio is 2:5 (2 million legal guns, 5 million people). That's the highest in EU. We also have among the highest homicide rate in EU, but these two rates are not really connected (i.e. very few of the homicides done with a gun.).
Your response and the thinking it indicates gave me a chill. You are justifying executing someone based on whether or not they broke a state law, not on whether or not they broke a moral law. Either you think firearm possession is inherently immoral (problematic but defensible position), or you think moral law and state law are equivalent (terrifying position) or you think something else that I haven't thought of. My experience in Singapore showed that the moral/state equivalence position was very common. It was the most unsafe "safe" place I've ever been in.
When we arrived at the airport, my wife was detained because the silver earrings she was wearing were cast from a mold to look like empty bullet cartridges (with feathers and various doodads attached, nothing that had attracted any attention in any of a dozen high security settings). The bureaucrat who interrogated her claimed that whether she was in very serious trouble or not was entirely in his hands.
I'm no second amendment fanatic, but as an American, it was shocking to find myself in a position where some minor official could plausibly even claim to have so much power. The fact that Singaporean society is willing to make that kind of tradeoff for the sake of safety made me realize that it was not somewhere I could ever live.
The craziest part was that the Singaporeans and expats I met there did not even see it as a tradeoff. It was more like "these are the rules, if you follow them you will be so safe, whether the rules are right or just or good isn't a well-posed question". We were just having two different conversations.
> You are justifying executing someone based on whether or not they broke a state law, not on whether or not they broke a moral law.
What are these moral laws you speak of? Your opinions on what is right and what is wrong?
The cases you present for firearm possession is simply a case of false dichotomy. Firearm possession is not inherently immoral. The armies of the country would definitely need them to protect the country against others, especially for Singapore who is surrounded by hostile neighbours.
Citizen ownership of firearms, on the other hand, is a highly impractical thing. It is illegal to own firearms in the country and that is just how the laws of the countries were set up in the first place. I would not go as far as to say that owning them is immoral, but by intentionally breaking the laws of the country, what are you trying to imply?
First, we weren't intentionally breaking any law. Second, arguing for or against firearms is beside the point. I'm arguing against people blindly obeying any law, if it comes at the expense of exercising sound personal judgment.
While I don't disagree, it's worth noting that any minor official at any airport -- and this very much includes the US -- has very, very wide-ranging powers over non-citizens traipsing through. Sample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
Singaporean officials are also very keen on following the letter of the law, and in Singapore that letter happens to state that unauthorized possession of ammunition is a Very Big Deal.
What wrong with caning? It's a much more effective punishment than a jail term. Pain is a strong negative reinforcement, while prison for career criminals feels more like home than freedom. It's drastically cheaper than a prison term. It prevents the contact with prison subculture/gangs.
Additionally, it provides some restitution to victims, in the case of violent crimes.
Conversely the USA has a much higher percentage of its population sitting in prison. I suspect many of those people would prefer a caning over the loss of many productive years of their life.