From: u907736@postoffice.utas.edu.au (Edmund Chia)
Subject: Re: SINGAPORE LAWSE
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:22:09 GMT

In article <KYTAN.92Oct8203931@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com>, kytan@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com (Kok-Yong Tan) writes:


> I, as a Singaporean, have nothing against anti-littering laws.  But sometimes,
> things can get a little out of hand.  I AM against the ISA and the chewing-gum
> ban: which are, IMHO, antiquated (and possibly misused) and an over-reaction,
> respectively.

I don't agree with the ISA either and I also agree with the suggestion that
the government can get over-enthusiatic in its legislation and over-reactive
to criticisms or just-plain-stupid remarks. However, I do challenge the notion
that somehow, because Singapore has laws on civic responsibilities, it has
oppressed its citizenry. I may be wrong but I doubt that in Britain or in
the U.S.A., people can litter their streets at will. Okay, so Singapore has
got laws on spitting, flushing toilets, and selling/buying/chewing gum AND
western liberal democracies don't. So what does it prove - that the west likes
the idea of people spitting in the streets, NOT flushing public toilets and
chewing gum? Doesn't every country have laws and regulations reflecting its
notion of civic responsibilies or restricting anti-social behaviour(even if
Singapore has got more than most), e.g. "no loud music on this beach, no dogs
allowed in this park, No fishing, etc - and aren't some of this regulations
backed by a fine? If so, could I not argue that just because I am not allowed
to walk a dog whereever I please in some countries, that country has silly
laws and is undemocratic. Okay, so Singapore banned chewing gum - the U.S.
banned booze a couple of decades ago - so what next - an Al Capone dealing
in gum on the streets of Singapore.
The objections against the ISA is much stronger. The general consensus of
western media is that it was a piece of legislation designed to keep the
PAP in power, therefore, Singapore is undemocratic and ruled by a tyrant/s.
I am not a card-carrying PAP supporter BUT I do feel insulted and that my
country has been insulted in that we allowed ourselves to be duped by these
power-hungry men/women or that ideological indoctrination had brainwashed
us to the extent that we could support any regime of the PAP. First, a
look at the history books(not just those written in Singapore) would reveal
that the ISA was drafted and passed by Britain while Singapore was still a
colony to imprison without trial political agitators. PAP supporters were
among those so imprisoned. Second, if the ISA was designed to keep politicians
in power, then it didn't do a very good job. Goh Keng Swee has retired and is
in China, presumably making lots of money as an economic consultant. 
Rajaratnam has also retired and spends his time writing to the S.T. and
even disputing decisions by official government agencies like the Board of
Film Censors, Tony Tan declined the Prime Ministership and together with
Danabalam wants to enter the private sector. It seems to me that many of the
PAP elite aren't particularly interested in political power. I agree that
the ISA isn't needed anymore, not because it was a tool of political 
repression but that it simply isn't needed anymore. It was meant to combat
politically instigated violence, IMHO, while political opposition exists, it
is not inclined towards violence nor see violence as a means to its objectives.
Moreover, if such a threat does arise, civil authorities and courts should
be adequate to deal with the problem. 
Perhaps, I am over-reacting but I feel that I can see a sneer whenever I
read some of the allegations of political oppression or brainwashing by
the State in Singapore. I resent the impression I get that I have to march
down streets, shouting and throwing stones and chanting slogans before I
can experience democracy or that I cannot allow any leader to govern in my 
country more than a few terms before toppling his administration. 

Edmund