It happened somewhere in the early nineties when I was on my year end holidays in Sardegna, an island south of Italy. The ferry that left the port of Civitavecchia (Rome) at 11.00pm. After 8 hours, she finally arrived Caglieri. Still, the news reached there.
The first local whom I met told me : “You are from Singapore? They just banned chewing gum. It was all over the news today.” I remembered replying “I am not surprised at all. Every now and then, we have the knack to come up with some astonishing policies.”
Consumed chewing gums were found inside the then newly built 150 million dollars MRT train; under the seats, on the floor, at the door sensors. It was clearly left by some inconsiderate commuters. The act was declared as Vandalism.
Vandalism is a no-no in Singapore. The issue made it way to be a topic for discussion in the parliament, along with other serious subjects like the nation’s annual budget, employment creation etc. There's something seductive about being known as an ardent supporter of making Singapore a clean city. Hence there was no lack of backers to pass the vote in enacting Chapter 57, to ban Chewing gum in Singapore. Any import and selling of chewing gum is prohibited. Along with it, came a long list of administrative measures, immigration checks and inspection to ensure its proper application.
I have problem understanding the argument for this ban, let alone being convinced. To begin with, I totally agree that littering chewing gums on anywhere except the dustbins is an uncivilized bad habit, just like littering any rubbish.
Chewing gums is hard to be cleaned or removed but it is NOT a poison nor a drug nor a sinful consumable. The very best adjective that I can come out with for chewing gums are “bad, troublesome, unhealthy”. Just like cigarette and alcohol.
Albeit cigarette being the main culprit for lungs cancer and alcohol can cause traffic accidents, there isn’t a general ban of these items in Singapore. WHY not?
Is human life and health not more important than dirty seats and faulty automatic doors?
12 years later, comes the irony.
Singapore and America signed a bilateral free trade agreement in the International trade negotiation. Out of the S$200 billion annual exports to America, this agreement gives Singapore a saving of S$150 million in duties. One of America’s condition is to allow the sale of America’s Wrigley’s Chewing gum to be sold in Singapore. As a result, chewing gums with dental aid properties reappear in the local market through registered medical pharmacies.
In the beginning chewing gums were banned because it dirties the environment. Now chewing gums with dental aid properties are allowed. Does it means that users of dental aid properties chewing gums WILL NOT litter them on the floor, under the seat?
A chewing gum is after all, a gum to be chewed. Nobody will take time to stand up against anyone to fight for its existence or to reason the logic. But with this incident, we are deservingly being slapped on our face: for our reasoning ability and for its easy dismissal under financial advantages.
The first local whom I met told me : “You are from Singapore? They just banned chewing gum. It was all over the news today.” I remembered replying “I am not surprised at all. Every now and then, we have the knack to come up with some astonishing policies.”
Consumed chewing gums were found inside the then newly built 150 million dollars MRT train; under the seats, on the floor, at the door sensors. It was clearly left by some inconsiderate commuters. The act was declared as Vandalism.
Vandalism is a no-no in Singapore. The issue made it way to be a topic for discussion in the parliament, along with other serious subjects like the nation’s annual budget, employment creation etc. There's something seductive about being known as an ardent supporter of making Singapore a clean city. Hence there was no lack of backers to pass the vote in enacting Chapter 57, to ban Chewing gum in Singapore. Any import and selling of chewing gum is prohibited. Along with it, came a long list of administrative measures, immigration checks and inspection to ensure its proper application.
I have problem understanding the argument for this ban, let alone being convinced. To begin with, I totally agree that littering chewing gums on anywhere except the dustbins is an uncivilized bad habit, just like littering any rubbish.
Chewing gums is hard to be cleaned or removed but it is NOT a poison nor a drug nor a sinful consumable. The very best adjective that I can come out with for chewing gums are “bad, troublesome, unhealthy”. Just like cigarette and alcohol.
Albeit cigarette being the main culprit for lungs cancer and alcohol can cause traffic accidents, there isn’t a general ban of these items in Singapore. WHY not?
Is human life and health not more important than dirty seats and faulty automatic doors?
12 years later, comes the irony.
Singapore and America signed a bilateral free trade agreement in the International trade negotiation. Out of the S$200 billion annual exports to America, this agreement gives Singapore a saving of S$150 million in duties. One of America’s condition is to allow the sale of America’s Wrigley’s Chewing gum to be sold in Singapore. As a result, chewing gums with dental aid properties reappear in the local market through registered medical pharmacies.
In the beginning chewing gums were banned because it dirties the environment. Now chewing gums with dental aid properties are allowed. Does it means that users of dental aid properties chewing gums WILL NOT litter them on the floor, under the seat?
A chewing gum is after all, a gum to be chewed. Nobody will take time to stand up against anyone to fight for its existence or to reason the logic. But with this incident, we are deservingly being slapped on our face: for our reasoning ability and for its easy dismissal under financial advantages.
No comments:
Post a Comment