MinLaw has rebutted criticisms that the law treats the rich better than the poor, by Subash Anandan, President of Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS). Article here.
These are lawyers involved in the criticism and rebuttal, so i am pretty sure they are well-trained in logic and arguments. Heck, it is their livelihood.
Thus, it was interesting for me to note the way MinLaw had rebutted. The cases cited are called ‘erroneous’ and MinLaw states that the law treats everyone equally. That is a ‘bare assertion’. Just cos you say so doesnt make it so. You need to prove it.
And the proof? One of Anandan’s clients cited in the criticism was rich but did not get treated better. Hmmm. I would have expected them to show how ALL the cases cited are not evidence of differential treatment. Cos one example is possibly ‘erroneous’ does not mean that, therefore, ALL the cases cited are ‘erroneous’. I am sure there is a term in the philosophy of logic that shows how this is not a valid argument to use but just dunno what it is.