One thing the woke left has always excelled at is its ability to inflate its importance with meaningless words. All the "activists", "NGOs", "advocates", "campaigners" are really just euphemisms for "parasites".
Because that's what they are, isn't it? People with no actual experience or skill in anything other than making noise, who have never had any meaningful impact on any issue that they so loudly support, and only leech on other people's problems to make a living.
One other such word that's really gotten under my skin is "stakeholder", that Richard Branson now used in reference to rambunctious Singaporean do-gooders.
It's a fashionable term used by people who want to inflate their position on any matter of choice, without actually contributing anything.
Because, what makes Kirsten Han et al "stakeholders" on drug policy or death penalty more than any average Singaporean citizen is?
Just because they happen to have a different opinion and formalized it as some sort of an entity to make themselves look more important?
What experience do they have in managing anything, let alone a country, to make any proposals for public policy that millions of people depend on?
No to mention that, as far as I remember, they tend to only wake up whenever there's an execution coming - and more often than not it's an execution of a FOREIGNER who broke the laws of Singapore.
At most, their "stake" is that they depend for a living on undermining the democratic order of the country and demanding legal changes that they have no mandate to.
And now they have the temerity to expect - or even demand! - that they be treated as peers to the minister of the elected government.
On what possible basis?
Why should min. Shan debate Kirsten Han instead of some hawker uncle?
What makes any Singaporean citizen less of a "stakeholder" than an activist famous for depending on foreign funding at New Naratif, getting paid by foreign press for her hit pieces about Singapore and demanding local laws be changed to protect foreign criminals from getting hanged for crimes done with an obvious intent to benefit from harming Singaporean society?
If anything, it makes her (and the like) less of a stakeholder than anybody else in the country.
