Chewing gum ban in Singapore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Chewing gum ban (Singapore), enacted 1992, revised 2004.
When Singapore gained independence in 1965, it faced a host of survival problems: high unemployment, water shortage, no defence capability and a hostile region. To address these issues, the Parliament of Singapore has worked diligently and enacted many important legislations: building of the military, public housings, economic policies and recycling of water. However, one legislation was featured prominently above the rest and has persistently put the small country on the spotlights of international attention: the infamous Chewing Gum Ban.
The effect of banning this small piece of confectionery cannot be underestimated. Since the ban was introduced, political analysts 1, business lobbyists, and civil rights activists have discussed extensively the social, political, economic, health (dental hygiene) and psychological impact of this ban. After all, this is an example of governmental control, in the name of good public policy, to restrict the distribution and sales of a commodity and the private lifestyle habits of its ordinary citizens.
| Contents |
History
In his memoir 2 , Lee Kuan Yew recounted that as early as 1983, when he was still serving as Prime Minister, a proposal for the ban was brought up to him by the minister for national development. Chewing gum was causing serious maintenance problems in high-rise public housing flats, with vandals disposing of spent gum in mailboxes, inside keyholes and even on elevator buttons. Chewing gum left on floors, stairways and pavements in public areas increased the cost of cleaning and damaged cleaning equipment. Gum stuck on the seats of public buses also constantly vexed passengers. However, in spite of his authoritarian reputation, Lee thought that a ban would be "too drastic" and did not take action.
In 1987, the S$5 billion metro system, the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) (MRT), began operations. It was then the largest public project ever implemented in Singapore, and expectations were high. One of the champions of the project, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, declared: " …the MRT will usher in a new phase in Singapore's development and bring about a better life for all of us."
It was then reported that vandals had begun sticking chewing gum on the door sensors of MRT trains, preventing the door from functioning properly and causing disruption of train services. Such incidents were rare but costly and culprits were difficult to apprehend. In January 1992, Goh Chok Tong, who had just taken over as Prime Minister, decided on a ban. The restriction on the distribution of chewing gum was enacted in Singapore Stature Chapter 57, the "Control of Manufacture Act", which also governs the restriction of alcohol and tobacco.
A Nation without Chewing Gum
After the ban was announced, the import of chewing gum was immediately halted. However, a reasonable transition period was given to allow shops to clear their existing stocks. After that, the sale of chewing gum was completely terminated.
There is a common misconception that chewing gum is illegal in Singapore. However, the ban only prevents the import and sale of chewing gum, not its consumption. In fact, foreign visitors and returning residents are legally allowed to bring small amounts of chewing gum into the country for personal consumption.
When first introduced, the ban naturally caused much controversy and some open defiance. Some took the trouble of traveling to neighbouring Johor Bahru to purchase chewing gum. A few tried to bring back more than what is legally permitted. These offenders were publicly "named and shamed" by the government, to serve as a deterrent to other would-be smugglers. As time passed and the uproar died down, however, Singaporeans became accustomed to the lack of chewing gum. Surprisingly, no black market for chewing gum in Singapore ever emerged.
Singapore's sidewalks have continued to stay gum-free. A new generation has grown up devoid of chewing gum, with few significant repurcussions. Tourists visiting Singapore enthuse about how they no longer need to pick gum off their shoes when walking on the streets. Today, it is generally agreed amongst citizens that the advantages of the ban far outweigh the side-effects.
International Attention
In the mid 1990s, Singapore’s forbidding laws began to receive intense international coverage and attention from liberal civil rights activists. The U.S. media sensationalised the case of Michael P. Fay, the American teenager who was sentenced to caning in Singapore for vandalism (spray paint, not chewing gum). They also zeroed in on Singapore’s other peculiar laws, including the mandatory flushing in public toilets ruling. It was around this time that Singapore developed its infamous "nanny state" image, where the movements of every citizen are constantly scrutinised and dictated by the government. A common joke is that Singapore is a "fine" country, a jibe at the excessive number of fines Singapore imposes for seemingly harmless acts like jaywalking. Most of the outside world saw laws such as the ban on chewing gum as excessively aggressive and even autocratic.
Singapore leaders responded by arguing that as a sovereign state, Singapore had the rights to formulate its own policies based on its own unique political and cultural values. Besides, they argued, these policies would result in greater overall benefits for the country. When a BBC reporter suggested that overly draconian laws would stifle the people's creativity, Lee Kuan Yew retorted: "If you can't think because you can't chew, try a banana."
The image of Singapore as an uptight, stiff-necked republic continues to be widely upheld and gleefully lampooned by foreigners. This is despite a concentrated effort by the government to portray Singapore in a more favourable light. The recent loosening of the ban on chewing gum is part of these efforts.
Revision of the Ban
The issue of chewing gum moved into an unsuspecting arena: international trade negotiation. In 1999, during a midnight golf game, U.S. President Bill Clinton and Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong agreed to initiate talks between the two countries for a bilateral free trade agreement (USS-FTA) 2. The talks later continued under the new administration of President George W. Bush. Dramas of the close-door negotiations were unknown, but it became apparent that by the final phase of the negotiation in early 2003, there remained two sticky issues: the War in Iraq and chewing gum.
First, U.S. officials requested that Singapore expressed her support for U.S. invasion of Iraq, this was readily agreed without fanfare. Second, they demanded that Singapore lift the ban on chewing gum. Apparently, the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, situated in Chicago , enlisted the help of a Washington lobbyist and Illinois Congressman Phil Crane, chairman of the House Ways and Means trade subcommittee, to get chewing gum on the agenda of the U.S.-Singapore FTA. 4
This caused serious dilemma to Singapore leaders. They knew that USS-FTA will be a great boost to Singapore's economy and they cannot afford the negotiation to be dragged by the chewing gum issue, but to give in easily would have political consequences.
Beside its authoritative rules, the long-running Singapore government is also known for its creativity in formulating ingenious schemes to tackle social problems, including the Corrective Work Order, Certificate of Entitlement and Nominated Member of Parliament. This time, they managed to pull out another trick. First, they recognize the proven health benefits of certain gums, such as the Wrigley's Orbit brand of sugar-free gum that contains calcium lactate to strengthen tooth enamel. Second, the sales of this newly categorized medicinal gum is allowed, provided it is sold by a dentist or pharmacist, who must take down the names of buyers. The healthcare professionals are not amused by this new responsibility.
Soon, the USS-FTA was signed, the ban was revised and the gum lobbyists declared victory. "They were tough," Mr. Crane said of the talks. It was surprising to others why Wrigley had fought hard on this battle, given the small size of Singapore's chewing market. But the company said it was worth it. "There's many examples in our history of things that may have not made short-term financial sense but was the right thing to do in a philosophical or long-term sense," said Mr. Christopher Perille, Wrigley's senior director of corporate communications. Wrigley is now planning how to rebuild Singapore's market, such as using billboards. They may face another obstacle: all advertisements for medical products must be approved by the Health Sciences Authority, 4
Meanwhile, with USS-FTA, Singapore's $20 billion annual exports to U.S. would soon enjoy free tariff, with potential duty saving of $150 million. It was expected to boost Singapore gross domestic product by 0.5%.
References
- Ho Khai Leong (2003) Shared Responsibilities, Unshared Power: The Politics of Policy-Making in Singapore, ISBN 9812102183.
- Lee Kuan Yew (2000). From Third World to First: The Singapore Story. ISBN 0060197764.
- Bill Clinton (2004). My Life. Knopf. ISBN 0375414576.
- Cris Prystay "At long last, gum is legal in Singapore, but there are strings", The Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2004.
