By: Christopher Hussey
Free and open dialogue is fundamental to democracy—this is undisputed. The ability to engage in conversation about every aspect of social life is important for citizens of any country. By doing so, people can shape the world into what they want, and governments will not have to convince people to follow certain laws—the people will do so if they believe them to be just. To begin such a dialogue, I would like to outline a specific process, exemplified through seatbelts in Singapore.
Organic Intellectuals and Regressive-Progressive
To do so, I use the theories of two philosophers, Antonio Gramsci and Henri Lefebvre. Gramsci, an Italian Marxist scholar, convinces his readers that everyone is an intellectual. His theory of the ‘organic intellectual’ changes the way people see the world—it has for me. The implications for this theory are that people no longer have to rely on others to make decisions for themselves; everyone is entirely capable of balancing the pros and cons of any situation. Moreover, Gramsci prescribes to all of us that in order to create change, the first step is by making critical your everyday surroundings and then analyzing certain issues collectively. There is no need to tackle the greatest and most ‘meta’ of issues immediately. All we have to do is start from what we know best and move from there.
One useful way of making critical our surroundings is by using a process called “Regressive-Progressive,” coined by French philosopher, Henri Lefebvre.[1] This method requires an inquiry of a certain event, situation, law, etc. to start in the present and then traces its historical and geographical evolution. Through this process, we can begin to understand how the present was ‘produced’ and not ‘natural.’ The major implication of this is that we are able to deconstruct the present and begin a process of change. Together with Gramsci’s theory of the ‘organic intellectual’ Lefebvre’s method allows us to begin the process of creating a world that we, as a whole, desire.
I began this process first by disclosing my beliefs and values as well as my biases and limitations. I live by a philosophy of treating everyone as equals. Neither my financial status, my educational qualifications, nor any of my distinguishing (or undistinguishing) features, are determinants of how I treat others. At the same time, I am a staunch advocate of limiting government intervention in various parts of society, although there absolutely is a role for the government (but on that at another time).
There is no doubt in my mind, and is likely the general consensus, that the policies enacted by Lee Kuan Yew and his team of People’s Action Party leaders—those in power since independence in 1965—have made Singapore what it is today. Sure, we can dwell in the past and think what could have been changed, but we are here in the present and must look forward. That is not to say that we should neglect the past; in fact, the past can tell us more about the present than the present itself. But what I propose today is to ask each and every one of you to look around, observe and analyze your own personal life, the lives of your family and friends and Singaporean society as a whole, and by analyzing the interconnection of political and civil society, we examine the state.[2]
The Problem
What I would like to do is bring in the voices and minds of everyone to discuss and seek a solution to a problem. By making critical everyday situations, I was able to see a problem that we in Singapore must discuss. Although this issue has been debated many times and the government has responded, there is still more to be done. That being said, I would like to call your attention to the ‘Seatbelt Double Standard.’ Let me begin by explaining how I came to see this as a problem.
I served my National Service in the Singapore Armed Forces from 2008 to 2010 and am thankful for all the experiences and friendships. Looking back, we were always reminded to wear our seatbelts—standard equipment in every single SAF vehicle for obvious safety reasons—whenever using military vehicles, even in the flatbed of a truck. Although in reality rarely enforced (my perspective could be outdated and wrong as strong public outrage due to the numerous accidents in the SAF may have led to tighter enforcement), I am thankful that the organization has taken into account the safety of Singaporean soldiers.
However, I am concerned about the Seatbelt Double Standard. Outside of the SAF, it is a law that all passengers in a motor vehicle (with certain exceptions) must wear a seat belt. (“Buckle Up. It’s the Law”) Are there any regulations on the need to buckle up for the passengers in the flatbed of a lorry? Sure there are limits as to the amount of people that can fit in the back (the yellow ‘PAX’ sticker that is calculated by 0.372 square meters per passenger)[3], regulations for canopies and higher side railings but surely that does not entirely ensure their safety. Now just because there are different seatbelt regulations for the military and the general public does not mean that this is where the issue ends.
Political Representation
We must go further and think critically as to how and why this came to be. For example, the majority of people that ride in the back of lorries are foreign workers. Should we treat foreign workers in the same way that we treat citizens and permanent residents? On what basis do we treat them as second-class humans? I am not arguing that lawmakers think of these foreign workers as second-class humans, but rather that they are not represented.
When a Singaporean soldier is killed or injured severely as a result of a military vehicle accident where a seatbelt would have minimized his/her chances of death or injury, his/her parents, relatives, friends, concerned members of the public, commanders and even lawmakers may immediately push forth legislation or a directive to ensure that all SAF vehicles are equipped with seatbelts and is enforced. For example, in April 2013 the SAF added “‘safety’ to its list of core values” as a result of the numerous deaths that occurred within the military. In effect, public outcry forced the SAF to explicitly advertise this commitment.[4]
But when a foreign worker is killed in an accident where a seatbelt could have minimized his[5] chances of death, who is there to lobby for legislation to require an increase in safety standards? Some politicians and members of the public have voiced concern but not enough has been done to create change and ensure safety.[6] But the circumstances beg the question: why do we have this double standard? Just because someone is not a citizen does not mean he or she should not be represented within our borders.
Some even say that providing seatbelts in the back of lorries will not ensure adequate safety and that workers should be transported in buses instead.[7] The counter argument that has been proffered by politicians in response to this claim is that it would cost more to hire a bus than to transport workers in company-owned lorries. But if we decide to ban passengers in the flatbed of a lorry, should we prohibit the carriage of persons in 5-Ton trucks during peacetime in the military? That is not for me to decide but instead I push for people to talk about these issues; the more people involved in making decisions, the better they will be.
Deconstruction
To bring this issue back to the Lefebvre’s method, it is important to understand the origins of Road Traffic (Carriage of Persons in Goods Vehicles) Rules 2010,[8] which, as stated earlier, created the rules for carrying passengers. By using the “regressive-progressive” method of analysis, we can trace the historical events and contexts to show how this specific law came into being, and in doing so, we are able to show how these laws have been produced. A perfect example of this method in the Singaporean context is Jothie Rajah’s account of the creation of the ‘Vandalism’ law where she takes the current state of the law and traces its history and explains, using the context at the time, it’s progression.[9] In the case of seatbelts and regulations on the carriage of passengers, the new rules put forth by the Land Transport Authority in 2010 came as result of a tragic event whereby “three Chinese nationals were killed after the overloaded lorry they were in skidded and overturned.”[10]
In concluding this article, I would like to reiterate my intentions. Firstly, I would like to start a conversation about putting forth legislation that requires all passenger lorries to be equipped with seatbelts in their flatbeds. Death and accidents know no national affiliation; this is a humanitarian cause. When we can take the necessary steps to ensure that lives are safer, we can congratulate one another. If the conversation takes a route that leads to the idea of banning passengers in lorry flatbeds, then so be it. The solution is not for me to decide but for us as a society to do so.
Lastly, I would like to call all people who are reading this right now, observe your surroundings, analyze, compare and think critically. Heck, just try to make critical the things around you. I was literally in a car looking at lorries on the expressway when this idea popped up and then continued to flush out my ideas in conversation with other people. This idea was not preempted by a tragic event like the aforementioned articles were. We do not have to wait for problems to show themselves. Let us find them and begin to address them. Think outside of that box you have been assigned. I challenge you to point out problems and start a conversation on fixing them. You are an intellectual. No one can stop you.
Endnotes
[1] Lefebvre, Henri. 1991 [1974]. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
[2] Gramsci viewed the ‘State’ as the dialectical relationship between political and civil societies.
[3] “Road Traffic (Carriage of Persons in Goods Vehicles) Rules 2010,” Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276, No. S 663, Republic of Singapore. Available from: <http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;query=DocId%3Aa7e395bb-78d5-4fcf-9163-0114b563a846%20Depth%3A0%20Status%3Ainforce;rec=0> Accessed 3 March 2014.
[4] “SAF adds ‘safety’ to its list of core values,” Straits Times, 16 April 2013
[5] I use the word ‘his’ because the majority of foreign workers transported in lorries are male.
[6] For example: “Cutting costs no reason to endanger workers,” Straits Times, 10 Aug 2013; “Make buses for workers compulsory,” Straits Times, 13 Aug 2013; “BMW-lorry collision: Six of nine workers still hospitalized, two in intensive care,” Straits Times, 5 Aug 2013; “Nine hurt in car-lorry collision; car driver arrested for suspected drink driving,” Straits Times, 4 Aug 2013.
[7] “Make buses for workers compulsory,” Straits Times, 13 Aug 2013.
[8] “Road Traffic (Carriage of Persons in Goods Vehicles) Rules 2010,” Road Traffic Act, Chapter 276, No. S 663, Republic of Singapore.
[9] Rajah, Jothie. 2012. Authoritarian Rule of Law: Legislation, Discourse and Legitimacy in Singapore. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[10] “Crash reignites debate over how workers are transported,” AsiaOne, 8 Aug 2013.