SMRT vandal Oliver Fricker: is caning really a deterrent in Singapore?

Singapore can justifiably be proud to have joined the rarified ranks of  First World countries within such a short period of time.

The current administration makes no apologies for some of its draconian laws that have enabled it to achieve this feat.

Tough laws like caning keep Singapore free of vandalism.

Do other countries have similar laws against vandalism?

Take Japan for example. Travelling around Japan last month, I noticed how orderly, clean and graffiti-free the country was.

Some may argue that the Japanese are very different from us culturally.

Then how about Hong Kong where the majority are Chinese? Hong Kong is similarly orderly, clean and graffiti-free. This observation is from my visits to Hong Kong.

In Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam I was similarly impressed. As a Singaporean we tend to make comparisons but it should be done with empathy.

Are Singaporeans so lacking in education and civic-consciousness in the 21st century that they need laws on caning to behave?

The more discerning among us will notice that caning is not an effective deterrent. We routinely read in the papers of people being caned, even for minor offences (for instance, immigration offences).

Today there was a newspaper report about a man who tried to extort $5ooo from a girl or he would post nude pictures of her on the Internet. His punishment if convicted? He could be jailed for up to 5 years, and caned as well.

So, do we continue to flog and flog bare buttocks?

Singapore leaders seem to have a fetish for caning, and proud of its efficacy.

I don’t share their enthusiasm. There are more civilised ways of doing things surely.