Michael Peter Fay, a mischievous American teenager, shot to worldwide fame after he was given the taste of Singapore's rattan rod (hint: it is not one of those Singapore delicacies). After being convicted of two charges of vandalism in 1994, he was sentenced to a total of four months' imprisonment and six strokes of the cane. Even a plea of clemency by the then US President Bill Clinton could not save Fay's bare buttocks (although it did reduce the number of strokes from six to four by the then Singapore President Ong Teng Cheong).
Following Fay's sentence, Singapore became internationally recognised as the country where chewing gums are banned and people are caned for vandalism. Even "Sue Sylvester", a fictional character from the Fox musical-comedy series glee, came out to say "You know, caning has fallen out of fashion in the United States. But ask anyone who safely walked the immaculate sidewalks of Singapore after winning an international cheerleading competition, and they will tell you one thing: Caning works! And I think it is about time we did a little more of it right here... yes, we cane!"
This issue has been brought to relevance by the recent vandalism of an MRT train committed by a 32-year-old Swiss national Oliver Fricker and his accomplice Dane Alexander Lloyd, a 29-year-old Briton. Both men slipped into the SMRT train depot in Changi, a protected place, under the cover of darkness and decorated an MRT train with the words of 'McKoy' and 'Banos'. While Lloyd remains at large, Fricker was sentenced to three months' imprisonment and the minimum three strokes of the cane after being convicted of the vandalism charge.
These two cases beg the question, is mandatory caning necessary for convicted vandals? Before I delve further into this question, it will be helpful if I educate our fellow readers on the relevant laws.
Under section 3 of the Vandalism Act, Cap. 341, "any person who commits any act of vandalism or attempts to do any such act or causes any such act to be done shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, and shall also, subject to section 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code, be punished with caning with not less than 3 strokes and not more than 8 strokes". Under section 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code, such convicts cannot escape the rattan rod unless they are "a) women b) males sentenced to death c) males whom the court considers to be more than 50 years of age".Apart from the provisions stated in the earlier paragraph, "punishment of caning shall not be imposed on a first conviction under this [Vandalism] Act in the case of any act falling within (a) paragraph (a) (i) of the definition of “act of vandalism” in section 2, if the writing, drawing, mark or inscription is done with pencil, crayon, chalk or other delible substance or thing and not with paint, tar or other indelible substance or thing; or (b) paragraph (a) (ii) or (a) (iii) of that definition". For the references to the paragraphs, you will have to read the Vandalism Act.
As stated in the preamble, the Vandalism Act is "to provide for exemplary punishment for acts of vandalism". But why is exemplary punishment necessary for such a non-violent crime? To answer the question satisfactorily, we have to understand its legislative intent. During the trial case of Michael Fay, it was put forward that the "original legislative intent behind the provision for caning in s 3 of the Vandalism Act was directed at suppressing those violent political elements which existed in Singapore in the 1960s and which wreaked havoc throughout our city by, inter alia, inscribing anti-national slogans in public places..." and subsequently, the then Honourable Chief Justice Yong Pung How also clarified, in his written judgment, that "the legislature was simultaneously concerned with containing anti-social acts of hooliganism." But these reasons do not answer why caning is to be of a mandatory nature.
Why not give the judiciary the discretion of sentencing them to caning instead of maintaining it as a mandatory punishment? Let the court consider the factual matrix and severity of each case before deciding on the appropriate sentence. In this way, it would give the court more flexibility in varying the sentence while deciding on the most appropriate punishment for the convicted vandals. After all, acts of vandalism are mostly non-violent and its damages usually non-permanent. At this point of time, I want to stress that I do not condone acts of vandalism and that these convicted vandals do deserve some sort of punishment. However, to imposemandatory caning on these convicted vandals, without considering the facts and circumstances of each case, would be too harsh a punishment.
Source: http://erpz.net/tag/vandalism-act/
