I thought that the analogy is obvious, but I will try to explain.

Mr. Donald, Mr. Bernie, Mr. Shanmugam and yes, you, make bold sweeping statements, that on the surface, seems absurd and too incredible to be true.

Mr. Donald got too many examples to count. Besides, he never actually tried to prove his statements correct. If he proved anything, it is that being vague is an art-form.

You already know Mr. Bernie’s statement. People beside Ms. Hillary and her team, have tried to to prove him wrong, eg http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/19/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-99-percent-new-income-going-to/
So far he have proved himself correct, but we should note that even if true, the statement may not tell the whole story.

Mr. Shanmugam stated that the death penalty can prevent drug offences. Can he then show us hard cold evidence (PhD dissertation optional) that he is correct? If he can’t or won’t, then he is being deliberately vague and a Mr. Donald in-the-making. If he can show us the evidence, then can you, me or anyone else prove him wrong, a situation Mr. Bernie will find familiar?

You stated that the death penalty cannot prevent drug offences. Can you then show us hard cold evidence (PhD dissertation optional) that you are correct? If you can’t or won’t, then you are being deliberately vague and a Mr. Donald in-the-making. If you can show us the evidence, then Mr. Shanmugam, me or anyone else prove you wrong, a situation Mr. Bernie will find familiar?

If you really got the PhD dissertation-like evidence hanging around, please at least send a copy to Mr. Shanmugam. Or make it public, like 
Mr. Bernie, but Mr. Bernie will tell you what will happen.