Thursday, September 22, 2005

Blog Hiatus (Small Note Before Temp Leave)

I will not be blogging till the end of next month (October) as I am now in the final stage of my academic year, finishing up my thesis. Of course, my blogging was never based on a consistent schedule, but nevertheless it's just a small heads-up.

Before I take my temporarily leave, I simply wish to give a small commentary on the latest developments in Singapore. A lot has been said about the recent "Sedition Act" case, where three bloggers (although they are not necessarily bloggers per say), one who is only 17, have been charged for broadcasting racist commentaries online. There has been some proposals, discussed in the news, to fine commuters for cheating on their transport fares. Then of course, you also are starting to see police investigations into the display of eight cardboards of white elephants.

There's pretty more cases one can pick and choose, but the message the Singapore ministers have perpetually emphasised is to respect the rule of law. They have argued endlessly that no matter how urgent a message you wish to sent out, whether you have pursued by altruistic causes or not, whether it relates to the community or not, you can never transgress the rule of law. It is held to be an absolute, and it is deemed to be the bar which all must account themselves to. It is the rope that ties all of us.

To the average joe, this little sacred truism seems pretty standard, and intuitive. Who wouldn't want to obey the law? If there was no law, wouldn't society fall into chaos? There is no doubt, to some degree, laws provide a common foundation where the members of society adhere to. It is the rockbed that everyone lives on, and one wouldn't wish to rock that bed. But we need to pose a lot of questions regarding how that "bedrock" is used: who is in charge of constructing law? What functions does the law have? To what extent can it fulfill these functions? Whose interests does the law represent?

This is a treacherous view, but one must take notice that the law can not provide the "end all-say all" for our social problems. Merely, what the law essentially acts as, is a state apparatus that is only able to provide an ideal, but doesn't explain or dictate that how it should be best utilized. It is one thing to apply policies that are in accordance with the symbolic expression of the law, it is another to judge if these policies are fulfilling these expected aims. It doesn't explain if the method applied is effective or not; or in other words, we need to start examining the utility of these acts.

Law does not apply order unequivocally. Order is maintained by a true consensus to achieve a certain level of discipline in society. However one may choose to punish racism or cheating commuters, as according to some legislative objectives, we lose sight if the punishment is of relevance to the goal. Punitive coercion doesn't always invoke motivation to change. nor to applease social unrest. but can come off with side-effects, when the punishment is not justified. Disorder is not the result of "not using the cane enough", rather what one needs to look at is how unequal and unfair standings and policies engender further disequibilrium.

Hence, there is good reason to object to the application of harsher laws on further groups who do not merit that type of punishment. Individuals who epouse racist lines, however distasteful one finds them to be, is nothing compared to institutional censorship of critical discussions on race, religion and culture. In fact, I would think government censorship of minority races having an independent voice of their own is a far greater crime than the lone individual who doesn't come close to having the power to institutionalise policies that may result in their social marginalization. It is further ironic that we expect them to be put in jail cells to rehabilitate them, when the criminal justice system has been applying the principles of restorative justice (a doctrine that promotes shaming of the offender and integration of the shamed offender into the community) to youths. And let's not forget that one of the bloggers is only 17.

In regards to the fining of commuters who cheat on transport fees, the argument is far less sound. I simply want to make a small observation and allow the reader to decide for themselves. All you need is to come to Melbourne and have a look where ticket inspectors are given the power to fine commuters, and witness how sheer carnage has occured as commuters attempt to escape the ticket inspectors. Further, a fine should realistically be imposed on offences that do some ostensible damage, and while one would argue that not paying for proper transport fees does commit financial damage to the transport companies, the current system of simply catching them and telling them to pay the proper fee works, in the proper sense of the word.

There has been a lot of other things begging for me to comment but I shall stop here and resume at a later time. Nevertheless, I would urge that people be advised to keep a more critical eye on the kind of progress this country makes. Not every movement would necessarily propel the society forward; and certainly not every rule is always for the best. These may be old truisms that an egocentric society may hasten to ignore, but the plausible consequences, if weighed and scrutinized more, will demand of us to consider.

NB: I wish to give a small gratitude of thanks to all the people who have contributed to the discussion in my previous post (the debate with Shianux). It was a fruitful discussion, and one that I hope will serve to show there are better ways to discuss serious social matters without using the "rule of the law". There is only one rule in this case: the rule of ethical, open and critical discussion.