In a conversation with Palinurus and Oikono over dinner, I mentioned that the recent controversy over Melvyn Tan, the draft-dodging pianist, tended to conflate separate issues and resulted in an unlikely public consensus. Palinurus suggested that a similar process was at work in the public outcry over the other recent controversy over the hanging of Australian drug mule Nguyen Tuong Van. The issues:
1. Should Melvyn Tan be punished in an equal fashion as any other draft dodger in Singapore, regardless of his individual achievements and international standing?
1b. OR, if Melvyn Tan was indeed equally punished, is the sentence for this crime too light?
1c. AND, why is there not enough public condemnation of the man?
2. Should Melvyn Tan be punished for draft dodging at all, when he has renounced citizenship, not lived in Singapore since the age of 12 and never returned since (until now)?
3. Should draft dodgers be punished in this fashion at all, and is our system of conscription just?
There is a huge public outcry in the media over first issue, about the perceived special treatment of elites, which Palinurus half-jokingly suggested might be due to egalitarian-fetishist hatred of elites/fear of genius and a celebration of mediocrity mentality. Or, a vindictive desire that others must suffer as much as they have. Regardless of the non-rational/emotional nature of this issue, the other issues of whether Melvyn should be tried for this particular crime, given his somewhat extenuating circumstances, and of the catch-22 nature of citizenship/conscription in Singapore, only tend to come up in discussions on Young Republic or in camp.
What happens then is that people conflate the issues and the answer for one overrides the answers for others. They conflate justice with consistency in punishment and perversely, end up advocating equal injustice. The media frames the first issue and people naturally say ‘yes’, but frame the other issues and the answer becomes ‘maybe’ or ‘no’ – but nobody sees the separate issues.
1. Should Nguyen Tuong Van be sentenced and hanged in a manner consistent with Singapore law?
1b. regardless of his extenuating circumstances?
1c. regardless of the appeals of the international community?
2. Is the death penalty for capital crimes justifiable?
3. If so, does drug trafficking constitute a capital crime? OR, is our mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking policy just?
The first issue is about the rule of law and consistency, and to a certain extent, some nationalist sentiment over sovereignty. The public tends to agree with the government’s position on consistent sentencing and independence from foreign pressure, but doesn’t consider whether the sentence in question is just. The second issue is a perennial debate, and the third issue based on a particular position on the second. The process of conflating issues and selective framing is similar. Personally, I’m torn between being consistent with libertarian positions, and a pragmatist ‘public-choice school’ position on the second and third issues – which makes the whole business uncertain, and I wonder if my certainty over the first issue is warranted.
On another note, things like this putative boycott of Singapore goods and services, and this denial of service, seem counterproductive and plain dumb. It’s like they never learn from history, and it doesn’t help change public sentiment here either.
