Slavery, just like defamation laws, has been on the statute books for decades, if not centuries.
In response to questions from Bloomberg, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said defamation laws weren’t meant to stop people from criticizing the government or politicians, but anyone alleging corruption or attacking someone’s reputation must prove the allegation.
He added it was “absurd” to suggest that about 2,000 contributors to a fundraising campaign constituted a “public backlash” to the libel laws, saying “far more” people routinely attended election rallies and other events in Singapore.
“Defamation laws have been on the statute books for decades,” Shanmugam said.
“Wouldn’t it follow therefore that a significant majority of Singaporeans support the defamation laws, since they have supported the government through the decades?”
Given Minister Shanmugam's logic, means slavery is more supported than defamation?
Since slavery was in the law for centuries while defamation is only for a few decades?
Maybe being a minister is stressful, especially because a minister in Singapore is a full time job and he is the minister of 2 ministries - Law and Home Affairs - compared to his fellow MPs many of whom hold numerous directorships.
He still didn't release the CCTVs of me when I was alone in cell:
He still didn't explain why I was manhandled in parliament:
Anyway, he's the minister leading an entire GRC - group representation constituency.
He arguably, doesn't even seem to have time for his own constituency.
In his constituency...
GrabFood rider casually grabs S$8 potted plant from Yishun HDB corridor after checking no one was looking
Yishun resident leaves vicious sign cursing thief: 'You will die a terrible death'
14-year-old derpy senior dog abandoned in Yishun dies
2 kittens found dead at foot of Yishun HDB block
Third kitten found dead at same Yishun block
According to GE2020 official results: Shanmugam's PAP team retains Nee Soon GRC with 61.9 per cent of the vote
Does it mean that almost 40% of his own residents disagree with his plans?
Does it mean that almost 40% of his own residents think he is illogical?
Does it mean that almost 40% of his own residents voted against him?
From an international level, what image is he trying to portray by saying illogical stuff to international media?
From a national level, what message is he trying to convey other than arguably, that gerrymandering has worked in his favour?
Imagine 60% vs 40% means his team can only get three seats instead of five?
And as a resident of his GRC - what is his plan for my family, especially my children?
Are there sufficient vacancies for preschool?
Are there recreational activities for residents?
Is there efficiency in his town council should anything happen?