Say what you like about the Singapore government but it is, for certain issues consistent. The famous issue is the issue of drugs. The government makes it very clear that it has zero tolerance for drugs on Singapore’s sovereign territory and the death sentence was until recently mandatory for all “drug dealers.” We make this point very clearly to every tourist entering the country. The warning is printed in thick bold face on the landing card. So, whether you agree with the concept of the death penalty or not, you know where the Singapore government stands and if you get caught with the stuff while in Singapore, you know what to expect.
The results of this policy are not bad. We do not have apartment
blocks with Junkies and the “killing” of drug dealers has always been within
the scope of the judicial – Singapore does not have the vigilante shoot-out
that is Duterte’s “War on Drugs.” Singapore, as one Englishman used to say to me,
“Is the freest place on earth because it gives – safety.” One of the strangest
things about being Singaporean in the West, whenever we’ve had to cane or hang a
Westerner, and having Westerners come up and tell you that your nation is doing
the right thing.
Having said that, there comes a point when sticking to particular
stance is stupid, especially when evidence indicates that your stance may not
be as “right” as you think it is. Like or not, knowledge about certain things
is growing and innovation can and does change certain truths. What was seen as
gospel in the 1960s should not necessarily be so in the year 2020 and beyond. Sticking
to what you knew to be absolute in the 1960s and trying to force through in the
year 2020 is what you’d call insanity.
The most recent example of this was when the United Nations
(“UN”) decided to remove cannabis and cannabis resin from Schedule IV of the
1961 Convention – the global text governing drug controls. The UN vote came in
on 3 December 2020 and two days later, our “least conflicted” Minister (somehow
being both the maker and enforcer of laws is not a conflict of interest in
Singapore’s magical political world), Mr. K Shanmugam expressed great unhappiness
with the UN’s decision. Mr. Shanmugam complained that “profit-driven” companies
were pushing the idea that cannabis was not harmful. Mr. Shanmugam was very
upset that “the power of money” had come into play. The story can be found at:
Mr. Shanmugam’s outrage at this “travesty” is funny. If
there is another consistency about the Singapore government it is the fact it
has never had an issue with things that are “profit-driven.” If anything, the government
regards being profitable as a divine right. Our public housing provider is
famously profitable as are our transport operators and the supermarket run by
the trade union. When the media companies stopped being profitable, the
government rushed to remonopolise things regardless of the harm is caused the
media consumer. So, one might want to ask what Mr. Shanmugam has against things
being “profit-driven,” when the government that he so actively serves is
obsessed with profits.
Then there is the assumption in Mr. Shanmugam’s argument that
being “profit-driven” is somehow incompatible with creating good stuff,
particularly in the area of scientific research. Whatever one might think of
the capitalist system, history has shown that the “profit-motive,” is
exceedingly powerful in getting things done. People invent and create things in
the hope of getting profit from them. The record from government funded or non-profit
driven things in the area of producing innovations is paler. Non-profit or
government funded works best when it limits itself to regulation or cases where
neutrality is required.
Then there is the issue of the evidence of Marijuana and
what it actually does. Mr. Shanmugam quoted the medical journal, the Lancet as
showing that marijuana use was harmful and therefore something that should
never be allowed to exist and Singapore was doing sparklingly wonderful job at
keeping marijuana and all other drugs out of Singapore.
However, while nobody doubts that there is some harm done by
marijuana use, Mr. Shanmugam failed to address the issue of whether marijuana
use was any worse than say tobacco, alcohol or even gambling, all of which have
been proven to be far more addictive and more likely to cause criminal behavior
as a December 2018 study indicates:
https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/how-dangerous-is-marijuana.pdf
This study indicated that while alcohol and tobacco had very
little redeeming features, marijuana had some proven therapeutic value.
So, question remains, is Mr. Shanmugam taking a hard stance
of something that is actually harmful to society or is he merely taking a tough
stance because that’s what he’s been conditioned to do or he only does it
because it makes him look tough.
Perhaps marijuana is too extreme an example. Another example
of what can only be described as “pig-headedness” can be found with what the
tobacco companies would call “alternative” products. I think Philip Morris,
which is effectively the world’s richest drug pusher, which is doing its best
to push “alternative” products and even as far to claim that it is working to “deliver
a smoke free future.”
If there’s anything that the world agrees on, is the fact
that the tobacco companies are “evil.” This is an industry that sells a product
that kills its customers with nasty diseases. To add insult to injury the
majority of customers fall into the lower income brackets, thus making the
tobacco industry the only one that makes a fortune from killing the less well
to do with diseases they cannot afford to have.
So, it goes without saying that one should be inclined to
disregard anything that the tobacco industry claims about its new desire to
move away from cigarettes. There have been articles about the science of smokeless
products being ….well, less than kosher too. If there’s one tax that nobody
complains about, it is the tax on tobacco because no sane person can be against
anything that hurts the tobacco industry.
Singapore is famously “anti-smoking.” As well as the usual
high taxes of tobacco and limited sales, Singapore was a pioneer in gruesome packaging
(which had the adverse effect of turning cigarette packets into collector
items). Being famously anti-smoking is actually something to be proud of and
one can almost argue that the government’s firm stance in being against vaping
and other alternative tobacco products as part of this anti-smoking image.
There’s only one problem. The current stance against
alternative products sounds more like an “anti—tobacco companies” than actually
being “anti-smoking.” While the science on alternative tobacco products is far
from perfect, the one thing that everyone who has been involved in the science
behind these products can agree on is that they are far less harmful both to
the consumer and to the dangers of second-hand smoke than cigarettes. I stress
that even Philip Morris admits that the products are “LESS HARMFUL,” rather
than “HARMLESS.”
Having said that, the logical assumption about an “anti-smoking”
government, that in a world of imperfect solutions, the government would,
rather than wiping out alternative products but keeping cigarette selling
healthily, they would ban the harmful product and ease people to a less harmful
alternative before trying to get them to the non-harmful option of not smoking
at all.
However, they can’t do that because, well that would make
the tobacco companies look like responsible people and more importantly, it
might make politicians less tough on an obvious villain. Unfortunately, looking
tough on tobacco companies instead of looking for plausible ways of getting
less people to take up cigarettes, Singapore has actually plateaued in the number
of people quitting tobacco.
There’s much to admire in people who stick to their guns,
especially in a climate where things don’t seem to go their way. One could
argue that it is principled. However, there’s also a point where sticking to a
position regardless of the obvious makes you look stupid or to make matters worse,
a prisoner to your own beliefs. The later should never be acceptable for a convenience
store owner let alone a minister in the “world’s most efficient” government.
No comments
Post a Comment