A Short Summary on the Source Article:
The article by MSNBC titled “Singapore loosens 12-year chewing gum ban” has the central issue of a controversial law in Singapore: the total ban on the import, export and possession of chewing gums, and its revision of the law in 2004 and how the people reacted to the revision.
The article briefly summarizes how the law came under play from environmental issues of chewing gum disposal, and explains in detail how the revision of the law which allows nicotine gums to be imported and sold in Singapore came by; majority because of the pressure of the United States government placed on Singapore. Also, it tells of the people’s reaction to and opinions of the new revision, and also writes of the heavy punishments if the law was to be violated.
~http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5066384/#storyContinued
Chewing Gum! A many-flavored confectionary so very hot to handle… Let’s chew on this!
Chewing gum is a type of confectionary that is flexible and tough, and a joy to chew and mince. Stress could be relieved from simply chewing it, and it could contain many flavors. In the modern world and of my own opinion, chewing gum is truly one of those inventions so significant in our lives that go unnoticed. However, the chewing gum wonder just has one flaw: it could not be swallowed, and must be spat out and thrown. Often in more cases than not, chewing gums were disposed of incorrectly and inconsiderately, causing a major nuisance to society. The sticky nature only serves to enhance the difficulties of removing the numerous gum leftovers. But should it be banned for such a thing?
Chewing gums were banned in Singapore in 1992, citing environmental reasons as the3 major factor, and the law was further revised in 2004 to allow gums of therapeutically values to be imported and sold, such as Nicorette, a nicotine gum used to cure and aid smokers out of their addiction to smoking. Under this ban, sales, possession, imports and exports of chewing gums were banned, and the penalty for smuggling gum into Singapore is a one year jail term, and a S$10,000 fine. Even after the revision, Singaporeans must submit their names and NRIC numbers to buy a legalized gum packet. If they do not abide by the rules, the punishment for the illegal sale of the gum will be a two year jail term and up to S$3,000 in fines.
I do not support this ban at all, and I will justify my stand by questioning whether the ban was necessary at all and whether it compromises our basic individual rights, and counter-argue the government’s given factor of environmental issues as a possible reason in the banning of chewing gums by stating possible alternatives other than simply banning chewing gums entirely in the island nation.
I strongly believe in the importance of individual human rights that everyone should possess. Every individual should act of their own accord and not be controlled by restrictive laws and prohibitions. The ban of chewing gums restricts the freedom of action of the individuals in Singapore to buy and use chewing gums. For example, a person living in Singapore could not buy and use chewing gums at all, and will be arrested promptly if discovered by the authorities, even if they disposed of the chewing gums correctly and did not commit any environmental pollution. Singapore by enacting this law had not only their democratic republican image damaged and compromised; which by definition of a republic Singapore should place the decisions of the people first, but yet it did not.
The public’s opinion on the matter was known swiftly as the law was announced and came to pass. There was a huge outrage over what I believe to be a ridiculous and insignificant law. There were many debates and arguments whether the government should have enacted such a controversial, yet trivial law. A lot of the public who decided to speak out said that the people’s freedom was compromised, and the government need to do no such thing to get rid of the environmental problems caused by the incorrect disposal of the chewing gums. There are also some defiant ones who purchased gum from Johor Bahru in Malaysia, a nearby town which could be easily accessed, and smuggled them in their pockets and luggage back to Singapore. Offenders were caught and publicly shamed by the government as a deterrent to other would-be smugglers, and also to show any action which acts contrary to the law will not be tolerated and be swiftly brought to Singapore’s version of justice. From the event we could really see the hallmarks of a fledgling totalitarian government, dealing out swift humiliation and punishment to those who goes against their ideals, not tolerating and differences in ideals from the public they were to serve, though their intentions might be of just cause.
And when the revision of the law came in 2004, many Singaporeans laughed at the slightest possible chance that it will affect them in any way. As quoted from a 22-year old Singaporean, “It’s ridiculous that it’s easier for 16-year-olds to visit prostitutes than it is to get chewing gum here,” Prostitution is legal in red-light areas in Singapore, and there are no explicit regulations on the matter. Another said that the revision is only for appearances and to please the all-mighty States of America, saying that “…why would I go through the trouble of getting nicotine gum if I can buy a pack of cigarettes without giving my name? I don’t think the new rules will help smokers to quit.”
The government had often responded to the controversy by stating the law was necessary because of those minorities who disposed of gum inconsiderately by sticking them in public places. According to my sources, the government’s initial reaction to the rising problem was as follows.
“Chewing gum was causing serious maintenance problems in high-rise public housing flats, with vandals disposing of spent gum in mailboxes, inside keyholes and even on elevator buttons. Chewing gum left on floors, stairways and pavements in public areas increased the cost of cleaning and damaged cleaning equipment. Gum stuck on the seats of public buses was also considered a problem. However, Lee thought that a ban would be "too drastic" and did not take action.”
Then why did the government take action in the end? It was because in 1987, the highly anticipated and costliest public project up then S$5 billion Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) began operations. However there were troubling reports of vandals that had begun sticking chewing gum on the door sensors of MRT trains, preventing the door from functioning properly and causing disruption of train services. Although such incidents were rare, it was costly and culprits were almost never apprehended. Thus with the problem mounting, chewing gum was banned for all eternity in January 1992 by PM Goh.
But on hindsight, is this problem truly worthy of a ban? Tight government regulations which were already in place for the sales of cigarettes and alcohol could be used on the sales of chewing gums, campaigns also could serve as a possible if not better means than outright banning by changing the public mindset instead of just keeping chewing gums out of our sights by banning it. The outright ban does not solve the problem of inconsiderate disposal of chewing gums, but rather keeps it at bay and ignoring them, while campaigns and regulations could serve to nip the problem in the bud, a far more effective method. Even till today, littering is common place. I would think that if littering could be banned and thus effectively eliminated, Singapore’s government would not hesitate at all to ban it in its entirety than launching campaigns to change the mindset of its people.
The trivial nature of the ban enhances the image of Singapore as a “nanny” state; a state with over-protectionist, interventionism, regulatory laws that borders on the infringement of individual rights. Along with mandatory flushing and no spitting rules, the ban of chewing gums, strict censorship of media and pornography serves to sharpen the ugly image. When the “architect” of Singapore was asked for his opinion on the matter, MM Lee said that “…if Singapore is a nanny state, then I am proud to have fostered one.” But truly, does a “nanny” state breeds model citizens who have the correct, moral as judged mindset, or just serve as a deterrent which does not help Singaporeans overseas? I believe also that is why many Singaporeans’ are labeled as ungracious and rude in other countries; being released from the iron rules restricting their natural self, they would feel so very free and thus act inappropriately. It is just like a prison inmate being released after a lifetime in a cement block. One would feel so reborn and energized that he would even forget the most basic code of etiquettes. And also too, is the ego of the government more important than what the public considers?
The banning of chewing gum is wholly unnecessary, and only serves to blacken Singapore’s image of a global metropolitan city. Banning is a drastic measure that will not change anything; the government must change how people use and dispose of chewing gums. The government must do more than just simply banning it and avoiding the issue. It needs a campaign to change the mindset of the people, instead of shunning the issue. As the saying goes, the forbidden fruit tastes all the sweeter, people will still get gums whether or not the government had banned it, and the ban could only inflame government and public relations and perhaps even help spread the popularity of gums. Thus, I feel that the ban of chewing gums in Singapore is unjustified and unnecessary, and a hindrance to the people and the society as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment