The Possum Bistro

Civil courtesy or civil liberty?

Upon browsing the voluminous edition of the papers in the afternoon, I came across an article addressing the issue of littering in our country. Obviously, the well-meaning editors of the publication find the topic important enough to put a front-page spread heading the section of commentaries. Neither the jarring absence of political commentaries that make their way to the front page nor the constant occupation of such minor and tepid facets of the standard of living which take the places of the former, comforts me to any degree as to where the local intellectual climate is going.

Still, I decided to humour the people who penned this report, since they had put in their time and effort to research, compile and edit their materials at hand. Bascially, some Singaporeans are complaining that a few amongst them are getting more and more pampered, blatantly littering without fear of being caught and penalised, since they believe that taxpayers’ money is being used to pay the cleaning services. Thus, civil courtesy seems to be deteriorating as individuals grow more disaffected in maintaining their clean surroundings. Already, though Singaporeans as a whole are known to have more manners than perhaps the stereotypical Chinese who comes from the mainland, we still have a long way to go in terms of fulfilling the requirements of a ‘caring society’.

Truly alarming about the report is the realisation that what some people are ready to accept to rid society of this litterbug malaise. Draconian laws, measures akin to that adopted by a police-state, CCTVs at void decks so that ‘Big Brother is watching’. Sure, harsher penalties might very well deter would-be offenders from littering so brazenly at public places, but imagine this: Jonathan Toh, writing to the Straits Times, suggests that repeat offenders should be blacklisted - thus having lower priority when applying for government jobs, university and polytechnic places and vehicle COEs. He also enthusiastically adds that these culprits should be denied the chance to purchase NDP tickets, SAFRA and NTUC membership.

Why, how ingenious! That must surely be the most effective deterrence system ever, because who would ever dare litter for fear of being put into place by the government? Littering potentially becomes as serious and life-threatening (since what Jonathan’s suggestions seem to be aiming at is the economic and social well-being of the individual - and we know how central economic well-being is to each of us, especially in Singapore when we are being socialised into the mindset) as other crimes such as robbery, theft and murder. After that, the slope will just get more slippery. In fact, littering will become a very convenient scapegoat of an excuse to blacklist individuals for reasons other than fouling up their environment, if we are not careful and vigilant enough as citizens of this country.

It must be obvious to the common man that if littering were to carry such a devastating lexicon of consequences that may or may not be delineated by the law of the land, such an arbitary power given to the courts to decide for themselves in which areas of the offender’s life to reduce his chances of success would be easily abused and terribly unfair to the individual who does not and can not know what consequences his actions will engender. Monetary penalties carry with them the power of reducing the individual’s freedom of choice to pursue several goals: a serious fine might result in him or her having to prioritise some areas of immediate expenditure over less urgent areas of expenditure. He might have to think about the risk of not being able to buy that new car if he is caught littering again, but even if he is caught, he is compelled to postpone his purchase and instead address his more urgent need to pay his rent on his house.

Basically, if he loses money, he still has the option of being able to prioritise some goals over others, and those lower on the hierarchy of wants can still be pursued, but they will take longer than expected. That is the deterrence which will act actively on the would-be offender’s mind. What Jonathan Toh is advocating is, however, very much different and extreme.

In Toh’s litter-free utopia, the powers-that-be have the authority to take away the offender’s options in life. If he is deprived of a spot in a local university, and he does not have the financial resources to support himself overseas, he is basically being relegated to a lower educational potential. Blacklisted people who find themselves denied the chances of employment with respect to their level of educational attainment will not only feel discontentment that it is now the government and not the market that accords them with the value of their work that they think they deserve. Take away his rice bowl and his options become very, very limited indeed. It is not a one-time burden on his priorities at that particular moment in time; it is a chronic burden that will weigh him down for years.

Arbitrary power exercised in this manner can be abused very easily, and eliminating the scope of freedom for the individual by attacking the very goals that the offender values rather than the capacity to fulfil those goals is a move that spells the start of a long, slow decline in the Rule of Law. We shall have to ask ourselves, or at least Jonathan Toh needs to ask himself, this question: which is more important - the preservation of law or civil courtesy? I dare not imply that these are mutually exclusive goals, but adopting Toh’s methodology will ensure that we achieve the latter at a very, very high price on our civil liberties.

MP Charles Chong quips that perhaps CCTV cameras should be installed to deter litterbugs, which seems like a fair argument since the measure has been successful in limiting the number of break-ins in the residential areas, and has decreased the burden placed on the neighbourhood police. However, the means tend to serve ends greater than the ones stated beforehand. CCTVs at void decks and places where littering may occur - which can mean any physical public space - would allow Big Brother to monitor and view the movements and activities of individuals very closely and effectively. The beginnings of a police-state lie here: surveilance becomes the most effective tool in ensuring auto-regulation and self-censorship.

To their credit, the authors of the article state that they recognise these beginnings of an authoritarian streak. Yet they continue to add that perhaps this is necessary until Singaporeans become more courteous. Unless we are willing to set concrete objectives to meet - and I don’t envy anyone with that task when it comes to courtesy (!) - and achieve a respectable level of civil courtesy, the ‘until’ will never come as long as the powers-that-be find it increasingly comfortable and advantageous to maintain or even strengthen these surveilance measures. Who will decide for us that we are courteous enough so that we don’t need the authorities peering over our shoulders all the time? Judging from the paranoid, paternalistic tendencies that have crystallised as a constant feature of domestic politics, most likely it won’t be us.