Now if you were to look around the world, 18 seems to be the benchmark in terms of adulthood - so you get to vote when you turn 18 but not before. Yes there are exceptions, some countries who put the benchmark a little higher at 20 or 21 and some who put that benchmark a little lower at 16 or 17. So if you want to move the benchmark to 16, then fine - by all means, but do it properly. Change the laws in the country to reflect this acknowledgement that 16 and 17 year olds are no longer children but are capable of functioning as adults: but do it properly. Don't suddenly treat these 17 year old vandals as adults without having first changed the law - yes they broke the law but do treat them fairly.
 |
| Will the law in Singapore be fair to these teenage vandals? |
Whether or not 16 and 17 year old youths should be treated as adults is debatable because their circumstances do vary a lot. There are some incredibly grown up 16 and 17 year old youths who already work full or part time, have partial financial independence, have very adult relationships and are effectively functioning as adults. Whilst there are other adults in their 20s, 30s and even 40s who are financially dependent on their parents, still live at home with their parents (because they cannot afford to move out) and whilst they may look old, their adulthood does not extend beyond their external physical appearances.
This does vary around the world - in North America and Northern Europe, young people do tend to move out and lead very independent adult lives by the age of 18. Whereas in Asia, from South Korea to Singapore to Saudi Arabia, many adults live with their parents way into their 20s, 30s and even 40s and would only move out when they get married. So I can imagine a Western country like Canada, the Netherlands or Finland making this move to treat 16 year olds as adults - but Singapore? Crikey. We're talking about Singapore, right? Where young people are infantalized through plenty of spoon-feeding in the education system and national service (mark my words: the NS experience does not make boys grow up at all), we're talking about the same Singapore, you do know what we are dealing with, right?
 |
| A country's law should reflect its culture and society. |
Why did this happen in Singapore then: why were these 17 year old youths treated like adults despite being under 18? Well, it does seem like an overreaction from the part of the government - it does signal that the government is incredibly worried about incidents like that happening again, thus the 杀一儆百 approach to the issue. If these teenagers were let off with no more than a slap on the wrist, "naughty naughty, don't do it again", then others may feel tempted to try something similar - which the PAP would want to nip in the bud by making an example of these teenage vandals. Many in Singapore do expect to see these five teenage vandals punished to the full extent of the law.
Having their faces splashed all over the newspapers would be the least of their worries - if found guilty, they face a pretty harsh punishment. Now everyone remembers Michael Fay - the American who was caned for vandalism - but not many would remember Andy Shiu Chi Ho - the 16 year old teenager from Hong Kong who was arrested and charged for the same crimes as Michael Fay. Despite his tender age, he received 6 lashes of the rotan during his 6 month long jail sentence. (He was 16 when the crimes were committed and 17 when he received the punishments.) So one can imagine the five teenage vandals facing a similar fate, a 6 to 12 month jail sentence with several strokes of the cane.
I do hope that somewhere along the way, these teenage vandals will be show mercy - punish them so harshly at such a tender age and you will only destroy their futures. This is but an act of vandalism, harsh punishments like jail sentences and caning should be reserved for far more serious crimes. If you create five angry youths with no hope of a future and unleash them back into Singapore after their jail sentence, what will they do next? I am not defending what they did - but the punishment should fit the crime. Though I also think that they are unlikely to be shown mercy since they directly attacked the PAP, but I am hoping they will get some mercy. After all, Sticker Lady did get some mercy - she was sentenced to 240 hours of community service and was spared jail. Even I was pleasantly surprised at that sentence which made complete sense, Sticker Lady Samantha Lo was no dangerous criminal and didn't belong in jail at all.
 |
| We've all seen this photo... |
If the PAP does punish them severely, then it would be perceived as an act of suppression - people will wonder if they were only punished this harshly because of the statement they made ("Fuck the PAP, Wake up SG.") and that could result in some pretty bad PR for the PAP if they are seen to be particularly vindictive and petty towards these five teenagers. What the PAP need to do next is important: they have a PR situation on their hands and they can either handle it well or turn it into a PR disaster.
What they have done is simply whitewashed the situation - they painted over the graffiti faster than you can say "PR fiasco" and have censored the graffiti in all the national press. But they forget that in the internet age, the image of the original graffiti has been circulating around the internet and they cannot censor the internet. Now if I was their PR advisor, I would set up a movement to engage the disaffected youths of Singapore to listen to their problems, their opinions, their aspirations and actively engage in an open dialogue. That way they can then turn around and say, "hey if you're not happy, don't turn to vandalism to vent your anger, come and talk to us. We are interested in your opinions, we are willing to engage with you - come and talk to us and we will listen." So far, I have not seen any kind of genuine effort by the PAP to try to go down this path and tackle the problem directly - they don't seem to be particularly PR-savvy when it comes to handling such situations, they have had plenty of PR fiascoes in the last few years!
 |
| Are Singaporean youths unable to speak up and express their feelings about the PAP? |
So the PAP can react in two ways: they make an example of these teenage vandals and risk whatever backlash that may come their way (hey it may not be that big of a backlash), or they can try to be nice, show mercy and turn this into a well managed PR campaign to engage the youths - but my gut instinct tells me that they will go for the former, not the latter. This is Singapore, after all and we're talking about the PAP. They are not going to turn into some kind of progressive liberals overnight and I really feel sorry for these five teenagers.
That's it from me on this issue. What do you think will happen to these teenage vandals? Do you think they ought to be punished harshly? Will there be others vandals who will try something similar in Singapore? Will these vandals be shown any mercy at all? Do let me know what you think, please leave a comment below. Thank you for reading.
The poor 5 teenagers.....all I can say is that their buttocks are going to be deflowered by the vigorous strokes of the punitive cane.......
ReplyDeleteDouble standards. I used to support the PAP because I feel that they have no double standards when dealing with criminals. etc, the underage prostitute event, the government did not reveal the name of the prostitute despite heavy pressure and calls for the names to be exposed, they went by the law, not emotions and did their best to protect the minors. This is the best point I like about them.
ReplyDeleteBut now, I am really disappointed with the way they treated the minors, putting their full names and faces on the press and TV. Super disappointed. I wonder if it is because they sprayed something anti-government that caused them to meet that fate.
I am so pissed with them now.
Alyssa, you are talking about a government which cannot accept criticism, and even went as far as caning British author, Alan Shadrake, when he spoke up against the judicial system in Singapore in his book, the moment that he landed in Singapore. All interventions by the British government fell on deaf ears, and they went all ahead to cane Shadrake. Of course, they will NOT spare the teenagers but humiliate them socially and publicly. It is all because the teenagers went ballistically anti-government in their graffiti.
DeleteAs you mentioned, there had already been precedent set in the past with Fay et al. The Singapore courts are known to be strict adherent to precedents in sentencing. The only way to avoid an incredibly bad PR is for the SPF to let the 17 years off with a very 'stern' warning. But this highly unlikely since an as yet not mentioned charge is that of 'breaking and entering' on to the roof top of the block. This is a country which expects its NS soldiers to fight with the ferocity of lions against an enemy of the country, but yet be docile as pigeons in a gilded cage during peacetime.
ReplyDeleteThey are going to be punished harshly to be used as an example. I want to be proven wrong but that is unlikely to happen since this is the PAP you're talking about.
ReplyDeleteIf the words were "F" the WP instead of PAP, what kind of punishment would the 5 kids get? I can guarantee you that it would be the reverse of what they will get for what they've done now. Probably on slap on the wrist.
ReplyDeleteLegal age is still 21 as far as I know in Singapore. So, these boys are minor. Even I were wrong, and it's 18, these kids are still minor. Therefore, they should not have their names and faces plastered all over the media. That is just WRONG! Should they be caned? Well, if the law says they can cane minors, then yes. Ergo, Michael Fay was caned. I do not agree with it, but the law is the law until it's changed. Personally, I think making them pay for the costs of repainting over the graffiti is more benfiting the offense. Perhaps add hours of community work, etc. I am afraid people are going to ask for blood. Singaporeans have become more self-righteous and blood thirsty for revenge since I left. Add the fact that the offence was directed towards the PAP, ... God help them! They have both the government and the people out for "justice". I hope these boys get forgotten after a year or two and continue their lives as adults. They were stupid, but we all did stupid things in our youth, didn't we? Not quite against the law type of stupid things, but most of us have made stupid decisions.
ReplyDeleteIt's not looking good for those 5 teenage vandals... According to a lawyer representing one of the vandals, "So I spent the better part of yesterday trying to get access to my client. He's been held for more than 48 hours. No one's explained to me why it's necessary to keep him for such an extended period of time. He's a 17 year old kid and he's been in lock up since Friday evening. Trying again tomorrow morning."
ReplyDeleteSource?
DeleteHis FB status update.
DeleteGranted I'm no longer that interested in any of these sorts of high profile cases, the fact that it is high profile shows how much we have moved on since Micheal Fay. That is to say not much given that this is the 1990s repeated in 2014. Until the laws of the land change, social change will be few and far between. Sure, some might argue social changes bring about legal changes but please look at Segregation Laws in america, how long they took to abolish that at the federal level and also take a look how long more it would take to abolish s377A that is well, just there for show....let's not go into anti-discrimination laws shall we, they are non-existent in this country...And for those wondering 21 may be the legal age, but if you're 18, procedure wise, in most cases, you will be trial as though you were adult because the juvenile laws no longer apply. As for identity protection, that's up to a judge to decide and in this case, it seems being so close to 18 worked against the guy trying to avoid the ensuing media shit storm.
ReplyDeleteTwenty-tree
Age discrimination is legalized and perfectly legitimate in Singapore. In the west, you are not to put down your age, and employers who do try using that as an edge against you have a lot to risk by playing that card. But this is Singapore, where you are automatically assumed to be culpable of everything whether you are 16 or 45. When people get sacked because of their age, there are always excuses such as over-staffing, and so on, and I know it for once, because my former research supervisor during my graduate school years in Singapore was forced out of his tenure owing to this excuse, but the fact was that the department had already gone onto this year-by-year track of extending his tenure. Yes, there is no such thing called fairness in Singapore. I doubt that these kids will get the fair end of the 'stick'.....or should I say 'cane'?
Delete