A Closer Look at Singapore’s Ban on Chewing Gum
I am beginning a series of longer articles that do a deep dive into specific laws that on their face look strange or don’t make any sense. I call the series “A Closer Look.”
The purpose of the series is to show the thinking behind the law and show the results of the law after it has been put in place. Did the law do what it was supposed to do? Was the law effective, or was it an overreach of government authority?
I will give you the background of the law, the actual law as it is written, the intended consequences combined with the actual consequences (some of the consequences will be intended and others will be unintended), and my analysis of the law.
I want students to get used to reading longer pieces because if you want to understand the law, you must increase your reading muscles. I also want you to learn to question the purpose of laws and if they do what they are supposed to do – and should they do that thing?
Here’s the first article in the series. Enjoy!
Article:
Who knew chewing gum could be so controversial?
It turns out, gum disposal is a problem for cities all over the world. The sticky residue of the tasty treat causes havoc for a city when not disposed of properly.
While we are focusing on the law in Singapore, New York City has had issues with gum as far back as the Great Depression (1930s).
First, some background leading up to the law. This will help us get a better understanding of how the law came about.
Singapore has fought throughout history to separate itself from various empires and other countries. When Singapore finally declared its independence in 1965, it had to work very hard to go from a small country without a lot to offer the world to the country it is today – one of the world’s fastest growing economies.
Enter Singapore’s first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew (LKY). LKY had a vision for Singapore, a vision that included creating a more modern society and a clean place to attract tourism.
That vision did not include having chewing gum littered throughout the city causing havoc for the public workers as they tried to keep the city clean.
But LKY did not initially want to ban gum completely. When the Ministers of National Development came to LKY with a proposal in the early 1980s to ban chewing gum because the government spent $150,000 annually to clean up gum, LKY thought the ban was too drastic a move.
Initially, LKY decided to implement bans on advertisements for promoting consumption and sale of gum, hoping that this step would slow down the issues the government was having. Even the opposition political parties in the Singaporean government agreed with LKY that the problem could be sorted out by levying fines to individuals and educating the populace.
But those efforts did not change the behaviors of the Singaporean citizens.
Chewing gum was causing maintenance problems in high-rise public housing apartments because citizens were putting chewed gum in mailboxes, inside keyholes, and on elevator buttons. There was also gum left on the ground, stairways, and sidewalks.
In 1987, Singapore opened a local railway system called the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT). Delinquents started putting chewed gum over door sensors of MRT trains, which prevented doors from functioning properly and caused trains to not run on time.
While the sensors were not interfered with a lot, when they did, it cost the city a lot of money and disrupted the trains from arriving on time.
All of this did not match up with the idea of having a clean, enticing Singapore to bring people to visit and bring businesses to do business in the country.
So the government banned chewing gum in Singapore.
Here’s the actual law (I’m only taking the relevant section):
Prohibition:
- Except as provided in regulation 3A, the importation into Singapore of any chewing gum is prohibited. [Go to the link above to see the whole law, which is much longer than what I am showing you here.]
You cannot sell, import, or manufacture gum in Singapore. If you are found guilty of selling, importing, or manufacturing gum, then you could be fined up to $100,000 and/or two years in jail for the first offense.
Chewing gum can get you fines similar to littering – $500 to $1000!
The size of the penalty shows you how seriously the government of Singapore is taking this situation. In a country where the laws are known to be strictly enforced, this is a very serious penalty!
Once, a reporter suggested that such a harsh law would stifle the people’s creativity, and LKY said: “If you can’t think because you can’t chew, try a banana.”
LKY was using his dry sense of humor to suggest there may be other ways to get the same results, and that the benefits of banning chewing gum outweighed the benefits of allowing the practice to continue.
The ban went into effect on January 3, 1992. For 12 years, you would not find gum sold anywhere in Singapore.
I could find no evidence that anyone broke the law and was punished during those 12 years.
Then, during trade talks with the United States, the representative from Illinois, Phillip Crane, pushed for Singapore to be open to selling gum again.
Crane represents a district in the state of Illinois where Wrigley’s gum home base is located.
In 2004, Orbit and Nicorette gum, which is supposed to help people quit smoking, started to be sold. Before a Singaporean could buy the gum, they must give their names and ID cards to the pharmacists. If the pharmacists do not collect the information, they could be fined $2,940 or up to two years in prison.
Many Singaporeans wonder why they would give their names and IDs for gum when they can buy cigarettes without giving that information.
Notice that with the addition of taking the name and IDs for the gum, the Singaporean government is still putting gum-chewers on notice. If littering starts to happen again, the government will have a list of names where they can start looking first to find out who they need to punish.
There is also a possibility that pharmacists will not sell the gum because they will not want the hassle of possibly being charged under the law if they forget to take the information or the person buying the gum will not hand over the information.
Are these laws harsh? Are they an overstep of what governmental authority should be?
If the government is responsible for stewarding the public funds, and public funds are being wasted because of irresponsible actions of a small group of citizens, does the government have a duty to act?
Or should the personal freedom of the citizens be taken into account, and cleaning up after the citizens is just a price of freedom?
From an article I found online while doing research for this essay, there were these reactions from people in Singapore when the law went into effect in 1992:
- Some were relieved of the fact they won’t have to face annoying issues like gum getting stuck to the bottom of their shoes or hands;
- Some believed that it was unfair to those who eat gum regularly, and also it took quite a toll on people whose job was to scrape gum off surfaces. [meaning, I think, that the people whose job it was to scrape the gum off lost their jobs. The article wasn’t clear on this point.]
- This also reflected on an individual’s freedom. “The government cannot have control over whether I can or can’t chew gum. This is simply ridiculous,” said one resident.
- On the other hand, another resident was quite happy with the fact that he won’t have to see gum marks on his way to work. “The footpaths look a lot nicer now,” he said.
I will now offer my thoughts on this law. As always, these are my thoughts, not the correct answer. I encourage you to disagree and formulate reasons for why you disagree. Or maybe you will agree with me, but for different reasons.
Either way, I encourage you to think it through yourself.
My conclusion:
I am surprised that I tend to agree with the banning of chewing gum in this instance because I do not like governmental restrictions on anything if I can help it.
I think this is because I am not much of a gum chewer. And when I chew gum, I always make sure to throw it away properly. While this law punishes everyone who would chew gum, to me, the benefits outweigh the harm.
This reminds me of a law that was passed in my home state of Michigan in 2010, which banned smoking in restaurants. While I absolutely hate the government stepping in when it should not – in the case of the Michigan law, forcing business owners to make rules for their establishments they may not want to make – I loved being able to go into a restaurant and not come out smelling like smoke.
This makes me think that my values are not as strong as I think they are because I secretly (or not so secretly now that I’ve written this post!) like the law banning cigarette smoking.
This is a common grey area in society – when can one group
This may also be an example of the tyranny of the majority – the majority of people in Singapore did not chew gum (or at least that is the assumption I am making), so they did not have a problem with the law when it went into effect.
But while I can see the logic behind the choice to ban gum, I do not like how this argument could be advanced to limit other freedoms of choice. It is almost inevitable that government entities will try to take more and more power into their circle of influence, and that never ends well (as we learn when we learn about the history of tyrannical governments).
Is there a better way to create the result that the government wants? That is always the question when dealing with laws – laws are force, and force is needed in a society of millions of different people with different points of view and different levels of responsibility.
But how much force applied when and where? That is always up for discussion.
Do you agree with the law in Singapore? Why or why not? Is there a better solution for keeping the streets clean, or should that be something the government thinks about at all?
Or should the people be able to do as they please when it comes to chewing gum and disposing it?
While you might not think this is the most pressing discussion in law that needs to be had, it is an excellent place to start thinking about how much force should a government use to get their goals accomplished.
Until next time,
Mike Traywick
Founder of Law School for Teens