Flogging Gum
Cultural Imaginaries and Postcoloniality in Singapore’s Rule of Law
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15064719 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jothie Rajah (0000-0003-0115-2252, American Bar Foundation, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2014 |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Publication date | 2014-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Law/text/culture (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1322-9060 • E-ISSN: 2200-7121 |
| Publisher | University of Wollongong Library (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.14453/ltc.558 |
| OpenAlex | W343594065 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 5 |
One of the funny things about living in the United States is that people say to me: ‘Singapore? Isn’t that where they flog you for chewing gum?’ – and I am always tempted to say yes. This question reveals what sticks in the popular US cultural imaginary about tiny, faraway Singapore. It is based on two events: first, in 1992, the sale of chewing gum was banned (Sale of Food [Prohibition of Chewing Gum] Regulations 1992), and second, in 1994, 18 year-old US citizen, Michael Fay, convicted of vandalism for having spray-painted some cars was sentenced to six strokes of the cane (Michael Peter Fay v Public Prosecutor).1 If Singapore already had a reputation for being a nanny state, then these two events simultaneously sharpened that reputation and confused the stories into the composite image through which Americans situate Singaporeans
Political science · Sociology · Asian Studies and History · Law · Legal and cultural studies analysis · Socioeconomic Development in Asia
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |