Opinions

Mixed response to National Day Rally

Health and Living

Graduating with student debts?

Opinions

How safe are our Facebook comments?

News

Vui Kong’s family pleads outside Istana

Written on February 2, 2010 by Christopher Ong

Email Story Printable version

Print Story

Facebook it!

Singaporeans who do not understand what ‘mandatory’ means

(photo credits:Vincent Poh)

Singapore — Street Journalism on the part of The Online Citizen team recently posed this question to Singaporeans: Do you support the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking?

And the results were shocking.

Not because many were actually against the death penalty contrary to the much bandied about claim that most Singaporeans support the sentence for drug traffickers, but the startling relevation that most Singaporeans interviewed do not even understand what the word ‘mandatory’ meant.

Save for a young girl interviewed at the start of the video at Bugis Junction earlier last month, young Singaporeans who were posed the question had difficulty understanding its meaning. Suffice to say, it was the first time that many of them had thought about the issue of a mandatory death sentence for all drug traffickers in Singaporea without the discretion of the presiding judge weighing in to the verdict.

Judging from the protracted hesitation that many of these youths showed before they answered the question after a slight nudging from the interviewer, it is also clear that many of these youths do not have a latent position on the issue of mandatory death sentence in Singapore.

Cruely mirroring these youths were adult Singaporeans interviewed during the busy lunch hour at Raffles Place. Many of them struggled to provide a satisfactory definition of the word ‘mandatory’ and had no ready answer to why they adopted a particular slant towards the issue of the death penalty.

“Wah, it’s a sensitive question,” one man quipped before refusing to answer.

And this is a cause of worry for Singapore.

The main attitude that most Singaporeans harbour towards issues such as the death penalty can be surmised in one pithy statement: if it doesn’t concern me, why should I even bother to think about it?

For Singaporeans who were posed this question, it appears that whether another person receives the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking is largely of no important significance to them. Insofar as an issue does not skid their immediate bread and butter concerns, the average Singaporean can be safely assumed to be cooly apathetic towards it.

This assumption is in tangent with research showing that these issues still form the cornerstone of the concerns of most Singaporeans.

While an expectation that most Singaporeans interviewed should provide a complete and exhaustive answer to an issue as knotty as that of the death penalty is unrealistic, it is surely reasonable to assume that the average Singaporean could at least provide an answer to why they adopt a particular position on the issue at a prima facie level.

If the Singaporeans interviewed are a reliable sample of the general population’s attitudes, one indeed should have cause for worry.

This is not because most of them are for or against issue of a mandatory death penalty, but that almost of all them are already stumbling at the first block of even knowing what the question means.

Singaporeans must not only choose to pay selective attention to only their bread and butter concerns, for while they may abstain from confronting the important macro issues facing the Singapore society presently, these issues will almost certainly be an ineluctable and common destiny that will challenge all in the future.

In this, there is no better way to do so by questioning the very elite stratum of society that claims a privileged access to the only correct answer to any one issue.

And perhaps, the first step to prevent them from leveraging on any claims to an asymmetrical knowledge on the issue would be in picking up a dictionary and understanding what the word ‘mandatory’ means.

604016 Comments2010-02-01+16%3A34%3A10Christopher+Ong on "Singaporeans who do not understand what ‘mandatory’ means"

Richard on Mon, 1st Feb 2010 5:17 pm

Maybe TOC should not have those ang moh speaking interviewers "mandatory" here "mandatory" there

As far as I see those kids at bugis are the chao ah beng. Don't mean that if they don't understand the english word mandatory that they have never thought of the question before. Maybe if u substitute it for its chinese equivalent, and phrased the question in chinese, they could answer the question better.

The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 2 Feb 2010 on Tue, 2nd Feb 2010 11:28 am

[...] We are against Capital Punishment – The Kent Ridge Common: Singaporeans who do not understand what ‘mandatory’ means [...]

xxx on Tue, 2nd Feb 2010 3:46 am

To be fair, i thought that one of the TOC interviewers had a hard time herself explaining what 'mandatory' in the legal context meant.

Chetan on Tue, 2nd Feb 2010 5:12 am

Nice piece Christopher, I'm not suprised at all by this finding, however inaccurate it may be as a representation of the views of most singaporeans. The term "mandatory" holds a legal definition that might be difficult for even many university students to pick up on. And picking up on the meaning of this term is crucial because it makes the Singaporean law's stance on drug trafficking seem all the more harsher. If the word in question is removed, then we might end up having less disagreement about the issue of capital punishment for drug trafficking. Understanding what is entailed by this term is crucial for a discussion of this issue.

Daniel on Tue, 2nd Feb 2010 9:44 am

But you see, our laws are written in English, not Singlish. Maybe we should re-write all our laws in Singlish so that ah bengs can understand them before they break them out of ignorance and get sent for hanging. Really sad story here. If they are that old and still need a Chinese translation, then our education system has failed them.

popo on Tue, 2nd Feb 2010 5:08 pm

doesnt it mean die die must die if found guilty?

LCC on Thu, 4th Feb 2010 9:48 am

Do NUS Law students support the mandatory death penalty?"

Law student on Thu, 4th Feb 2010 12:48 pm

Chetan:

Actually, nowhere in the Misuse of Drugs Act would you find the word "mandatory". Instead, the punishments for the various offences are set out in table form under the Second Schedule of the Act, and the sole punishment "Death" is prescribed for cases where a specified quantity of drugs is exceeded.

Thus, "mandatory" has no special legal meaning, at least in the context of drug offences. It is simply a term of reference that the media/public has decided to use.

Chris Ong on Fri, 5th Feb 2010 1:44 am

I guess what's startling is that a large number of Singaporeans are struggling even for a common-sense definition of the word 'mandatory'

Cheers
Chris

Chris Ong on Fri, 5th Feb 2010 1:44 am

Thanks for the link, LCC!

Great work by TOC again, as always.

Chris Ong on Fri, 5th Feb 2010 1:46 am

Good point you've highlighted.

If there are indeed legal ramifications of the word, then perhaps an analysis of it might reveal more than meets the eye on Singapore's law against drug trafficking.

Thanks, Chetan
Chris

Chris Ong on Fri, 5th Feb 2010 1:48 am

Yes I kind of agree too. Perhaps it's framing its legal connotations in an accessible way to the ordinary joe on the streets poses the hardest challenge. But I guess even an commonsensical definition of the word mandatory would suffice to drive home her to point to those she was intervewing.

Thanks for your comments.
Chris

Chris Ong on Fri, 5th Feb 2010 1:49 am

Hi Richard,

A time for Chinese interviews to be conducted? Would be interesting if they went to coffeeshops to really canvass for opinions on the ground.

Cheers,
Chris

The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 06 on Sat, 6th Feb 2010 9:05 am

[...] are against Capital Punishment – The Kent Ridge Common: Singaporeans who do not understand what ‘mandatory’ means – TOC: Do NUS law students support the mandatory death [...]

contrarian on Sat, 13th Feb 2010 4:38 pm

If you claim that "Insofar as an issue does not skid their immediate bread and butter concerns, the average Singaporean can be safely assumed to be cooly apathetic towards it.", then either you convince them otherwise, or you have lost in a free contest of ideas.

If you cannot persuade or convince them to your cause, then it is not for you to decide what the majority wants if they persist in their belief in what is in their best interest, and "choose to pay selective attention to only their bread and butter concerns".

JacqOwyong on Tue, 23rd Feb 2010 1:22 pm

Our laws are written in English and therefore i think it is only appropriate for everything else to be in English? The entire issue here, i feel, is less on whether we should be using "mandatory"or not. Instead, we should place our focus on educating the level of English in Singapore.

Other Reviews

Mystery of the YOG Empty Seats
The Straits Times reports of venues being near-empty despite the ...

Was NUS student really approached by ISD?
The Temasek Review recently ran an article from an anonymous ...

Flooding woes – the critical cause of poor soil quality
There is an old Geography adage that goes “earthquakes don’t ...

OTHER NEWS HEADLINE

Feature

How safe are our Facebook comments?
by The Kent Ridge Common