I politely disagree. in response to the caning, the US effectively shut down the Singapore summit that year. It was a blow to their ability to affect international trade in the context of the WTO.

https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19940510&slug...

So, in response to the arrest and caning of the son of the US Ambassador to Singapore, the US retaliated with some temporary blow to their trade?

That sounds way less extreme than what the OP suggests. If the US didn't threaten invasion over the detention of a family member of their embassy, I doubt they would do much for some random citizen that ran afoul of law enforcement in another country.

>This take doesn't deserve the upvotes it's getting

But it sounds good and that feel-good-factor was what the parent comment was trying to evoke. I'd say they succeeded momentarily.

I need to take a slight exception to "did not lose respect".

In an interview, Lee Kuan Yew said he felt very pained with Clinton's lack of dignity in interjecting himself into something as petty as a vandalism case, and as a face saving measure for Clinton reduced the penalty from 6 to 4 lashes.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/spare-the-rod-spoil-the-c_b_8...

I don't have the exact reference to this told from Lee's side much later, but the above story tells of Clinton's involvement.