First World : A good article

and some thoughts on social control

Bernard wrote in an excellent article entitled: Further than Closer to a First World Nation

The immediate solution that any law-abiding Singaporean would do is to call the police and find out who did it, and possibly charge the person who did it with a sedition law. Yes, the law is able to handle this efficiently, but it does not solve the underlying problem that we cannot correct the attitudes of a few closed-minded individuals other than by fear. The solution should be a combined effort of the law and community pressure.

The community pressure is the missing part of the solution that we cannot identify individuals who are close minded. The lack of faith in community to resolve problems is reminiscent of the current "light touch" approach to the internet and new media. A lot of times, the establishment came in to resolve the problem with the heavy legal hand instead of letting the community put social pressure on people (who are clearly making offensive remarks) to back off or take them down. "

Such an analysis appeal to the liberal for it speaks little of the role of punishment and celebrates man's ability to change for the better; appeal to the community because it places great faith in the ability of communal groups and social institutions to affect change without the use of the law. It also suggest that given the right conditions, we can come to a conclusion of what is right and what is wrong. The heavy legal hand, all pervasive in Singapore, it seems, should have a rightful slap on its wrist.

Yet, and here is where I depart from Bernard, I think the 'lack of faith' in the community comes not from the state, but from the community itself. After all, the legal hand, as much as one of political power, is also one which social groups and individuals exercise their powers on other social groups and other individuals. Take Bernard's standard case:

"Let me put forward a standard situation, suppose you see a graffiti on public property that totally represents racial hatred, what's your first reaction? The immediate solution that any law-abiding Singaporean would do is to call the police and find out who did it, and possibly charge the person who did it with a sedition law."

Let us say Mr. Tan sees the graffiti and gets very angry. What happens next? The police gets his call, sends someone down. They interview Mr Tan. In the usual case there is little evidence *unless CCTV* there is little chance of apprehending the vandal , there is nothing much to be done. Perhaps HDB or the management council will be notified and a process taken to remove the graffiti is set in motion.

But let us say the Vandal got caught. Lets say he was sorry and said that it was done out of sheer angst of a moment. Vandalism is already a very serious crime and considering racial hatred, the investigation officer might decide to press serious charges to give this vandal a real lesson. The charges reaches the Attorney General chambers and say a young recently graduated legal officer looks at the charges. He personally thinks that this incident is minor. Also he does not wish to attract public attention as a sedition charge might. His superior might concur. So the vandal is charged with vandalism instead of sedition.

I described the above hypothetical process in massive detail but one must realize that in relation to crimes and anti-social behavior in general - shop theft, molest, voluntarily causing hurt - the process takes place over and over again for each incident. We have all heard reports about how this power is exercised by daughter against mother, mother against son, son against father, father against son, husband against wife, brother against brother. Our most intimate relations appear governed precariously and implicitly by the call to the police. The police are at best an instrument of control in this regard. Besides, individuals working this system are usually less intent on social control than those who made the call in the first place.

In other words, this strong legal handedness represents people intent on the control of others more than the state heavy handedness per se. This is very much the norm in our country - this picking up of the phone. And because we use it so often, it is no wonder the police and the laws are in a position of great power. When the police send 4 anti-riot vans to the Odex protest, and filmed everyone during the signing of the petition against the evil military junta at St. Martin Drive; it merely represents I believe the same thing - a desire for some people to control other people. Even before the 4 anti-riot vans and the filming of everyone, there were already those in the respective communities urging others NOT to join the protest or the petition. Social control on one level had already begun before social control on an another.

Why do we want to control others so much? That we sanction the use of legal powers over others? What if that vandal was not willing to stop being a "racist" but willing to stop vandalising? What's wrong with that? Why do anti-gay people want sex between males to be a crime? Look at Stomp and the constant display of that vulgar desire to control others through public "expose" and shaming. If there were anti-social or moralistic legislation, our crime rate will skyrocket and I imagine people calling the police for every other act. We live in a country where social control is believed possible (and good)- and regularly effected. In schools, workplace, families, online and even on stomp. The state is one big social control giant. And the people - they are giants in their own way in that regard with their desired effect magnified by the efficiency of state appartus. We are not a first world country. How is that even possible? There are people among us who appeal to authority so quickly that one questions whether they appreciate the possibility of a civilizing discourse. Bernard is right. But not only do we have to have an avenue to think for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, we should also think that when faced with what we think is wrong, what should the appropriate response be. But there will always be those whose first reaction is to call the police.