>Which polls? Political elections? Professional polls from experts? Or some random poll on the streets from some TV-Station or influencer?
All the above. Political elections of people that are pro death penalty, professional polls commissioned by the MHA (and done continually in separate years), and also you can hear them from people on the streets if that's your preferred way.
>People also answer very different depending on the prospected outcome, thus the "seriousness" of their answer.
It's not simply a "prospected" outcome, the people in the polls literally are living in a country actively doing it and has been doing it for quite awhile. The information is out there to see what they're getting.
>And legal system in Singapore works like USA? This seems like a strange claim.
This is your fifth consecutive interrogative cross-examination question which is clearly aimed at presenting a counter-narrative without having to use the courage of making any assertions of your own, I only note here that your "question" implies a straw man that I've presented they work the same. But if you insist, the requirement of amending Singapore constitution is easily met in the context of the death penalty for drugs (2/3 MP + possibly 2/3 national referendum), were it that their civil rights were prior codified there to prohibit it.
All the above. Political elections of people that are pro death penalty, professional polls commissioned by the MHA (and done continually in separate years), and also you can hear them from people on the streets if that's your preferred way.
>People also answer very different depending on the prospected outcome, thus the "seriousness" of their answer.
It's not simply a "prospected" outcome, the people in the polls literally are living in a country actively doing it and has been doing it for quite awhile. The information is out there to see what they're getting.
>And legal system in Singapore works like USA? This seems like a strange claim.
This is your fifth consecutive interrogative cross-examination question which is clearly aimed at presenting a counter-narrative without having to use the courage of making any assertions of your own, I only note here that your "question" implies a straw man that I've presented they work the same. But if you insist, the requirement of amending Singapore constitution is easily met in the context of the death penalty for drugs (2/3 MP + possibly 2/3 national referendum), were it that their civil rights were prior codified there to prohibit it.