Monthly Archives: March 2011

Being punished for jaywalking: An insult to our intelligence?

On the back cover of Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going, one sentence caught my eye: “Will Singapore ever become a democracy?” I have yet to read the book in its entirety, but I daresay it will be at least a fairly enlightening read. I mention Hard Truths because the father of modern Singapore often says (either verbatim or in some derived form) that the people of Singapore are not yet ready for a democracy, nor for completely free speech; Singaporeans, when unleashed, will bite each other’s heads off with vitriolic remarks.

You will hear a similar reason being bandied about for most of of the paternalistic policies that are implemented in the city-state: that our citizens need this approach, that it is for the greater good. What I want to talk about, however, is something a little smaller – something, perhaps, that seems insignificant on the surface, but to me seems like a justified concern. I’m talking about jaywalking, an offence that carries (mostly) a $20 fine; but if one were to be a subsequent offender, one might be sentenced to up to six months in jail.

In a 2009 notice by the Singapore Police Force, it was noted that out of the 62 pedestrians who died on the road, 42 of them were jaywalkers. An average of 7000 summonses for jaywalkers is given every year (although the notice also suggested that there were fewer jaywalkers caught – 400 less, in fact). Subsequently, the 2009 statistics for road casualties suggested that there had been a dramatic decline in the number of pedestrians killed on the roads, dropping to 45 deaths.

Statistically speaking, a danger in reading numbers too much

Such statistics, however, do not demonstrate anything, in my opinion. First, after 2008, the proportion of jaywalkers to pedestrian deaths have not been published. Second, the numbers fluctuate randomly, mostly because the dynamics of an accident are complex and not merely based on the behaviour of just an individual. In 2007 and 2008, pedestrian deaths spiked to 58 and 62 respectively – but does that signify that there has been more irresponsible pedestrians?

For instance, one can say that blatant jaywalking behaviour is directly correlated with road accidents: but I hypothesise here that it may not be the case. Taking Little India as an example, where foreigners and locals alike walk as though the roads truly belonged to them, there hasn’t been a significant number of road accidents from what I know of.

The elderly should be targeted?

The majority of pedestrians killed in 2009 were elderly citizens (44.4% of them, according to the Singapore Police Force statistics), and the sizable majority of them were jaywalking then. Hence, the statistics seem to suggest that we should focus our efforts on elderly citizens to ensure that they made use of the available safe traffic crossings.

This may sound a little incredulous, but does it not make sense that it is more likely than not that elderly people are more likely to succumb to the injuries of a road accident? If this is an unfortunate, but unavoidable, statistic that is likely to repeat itself year after year, then perhaps we should be considering an alternative to simply punishing people for jaywalking.

How about just showing the elderly more respect on the roads? When I went to the United States and Canada on exchange, I marvelled at the manner in which drivers stopped for pedestrians to cross the road, even if they had the right of way. It is strange, come to think of it, that the roads are considered public goods – a shared good – but most Singaporeans consider the road to be solely “theirs” at a particular point in time, and somebody else’s at another point. It’s time to learn that the roads are not about the “right” of way, but rather the “need” of way.

All right, punishments… but for whom?

Based on the statistics, surely you would be seeing more traffic police taking on the elderly and making sure, if not to give them a stern warning, that they are fined for their troubles. But what we see is that the traffic police seem to be targeting the “hot spots” where most young people are. Recently they even took the trouble to come down to my university to catch students from making the short, 20-metre journey from one school building to the other.

Why target places like schools, I wonder? Are students like us so terrible at judging distances that we require a constable’s assistance to ensure that everybody makes it across the road safely? (Incidentally, the stretch of four lanes is a one-way street: one doesn’t even have to worry about his blind spot when crossing the road!)

The young should be the least of a policeman’s concerns, if he or she is concerned about jaywalking; after all, most of them are often fit and good enough to make a judgment on whether a road should be crossed or not, and they do not make up the majority of pedestrian deaths. Having a law that is enforced on the wrong audience is (apart from having no effect in reducing tragedies) like an insult to our intelligence.

Three things are wrong with the fact that we need to be punished for jaywalking: the statistics are almost certainly spurious, if not grievously incorrect; the elderly should be “targeted” in jaywalking campaigns; yet, the places where jaywalking patrols are set up seem to happen to be in the wrong locations, targeting the wrong groups of people. Why is that? We may not be having our democracy anytime soon, but at least I am hoping – as with what I suspect is the majority of citizens – that the jaywalking legislation should be reviewed, if not repealed.

Why Al Gore is an enigma and why Starbucks gives me a nice feeling

Note: Another paper I wrote for my Ethics class.

In 2001, sixteen science academies from all over the world made a joint statement supporting the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that they were “90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise”[1]. Global warming is widely acknowledged to be happening by the scientific community, but continues to attract remarkable controversy among the public. Jim Inhofe, the Senator of Oklahoma state in the United States, calls global warming a “hoax” even as his state’s summer temperatures hit record highs last year[2]. Some politicians, keen to seek an easy way out of the environmental problem, have tried to escape through redefining the problem altogether: George W. Bush, in 2007, said that he was “committed” to reducing global warming[3], but after calling the Kyoto Protocol “fatally flawed”, he remained in opposition to binding limits on carbon emissions.

Overstating the truth for a greater good?

I will not, however, be discussing on whether global warming is true or not, for like what Al Gore’s spokesperson mentioned, debating on whether global warming is true is like whether we should be “debating whether smoking causes cancer”[4]. The question is whether, in the state of urgency to save the environment that we currently find ourselves, if there is an incentive by environmental organisations to overstate the claims of global warming in order to incentivise people to take action on climate change.

Al Gore’s career after his controversial loss to Bush in 2000 would culminate in a movie, An Inconvenient Truth, that presents the phenomenon as real, frightening, but a problem that can be solved. Despite the mostly positive reviews about Gore’s presentation prowess and accuracy, the British High Court highlighted nine errors in the film that overstate the risks of global warming, including the fact asserted by Gore that sea levels will rise up to 20 feet in the foreseeable future. Judge Michael Burton’s reply was crisp: that it would only “take place over thousands of years”[5].

The utilitarian, obviously, will offer the maxim that there is a greater good for the community that can be derived by overstating the truth. Surely, to get people to save the environment to benefit the thousands of tribal communities living in vulnerable forests around the world, as well as making development sustainable for future generations, provides much greater benefit than simply providing conveniences to the current generation? The Kantian perspective would obviously be against this: lying is not a rule that one would want to be applied universally, and it is also exploiting a person rather than providing him with the autonomy to decide.

The key problem with utilitarianism, however, is with the quantifying of what constitutes “utility” for different groups of individuals: for instance, in the case of policymaking, a politician has to decide how to allocate a budget between the life sciences and the environment. Believing that the environment is in dire need of rescue, the politican allocates the majority of the budget to environmental causes. But if the status of the environment was more accurately reported, then perhaps the politician might have benefited through funding life sciences programs that can make future generations stronger and healthier. The constraint (labelled “imperfect information” in economics) results in the misallocation of resources that could have been better used to maximise happiness in the community.

Hypocrisy

What really makes Al Gore such an enigma is not so much the message as it is his actions: he has been criticised for staying in a house that consumes far more electricity than the average American, although he continually advocates cutting down on electrical use in his talks, including in his movie. What is interesting, however, is that even though he uses more power than the average household, he subscribes to the plan that maximises the use of clean energies such as wind and solar power[6]. Yet, one can argue that even that does not invalidate the argument that he might be a hypocrite, asking people to reduce power usage when in fact his household is not doing so.

Hypocrisy is, in essence, the violation of Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative: the principle of universality. It is also somewhat of a violation of the second formulation, the principle of humanity, since you are asking everybody else to take your share in committing an act when in fact you have no intention of doing so. This is what makes critics feel that Al Gore has not been a good role model in the case of saving the environment. The Kantian ethical perspective, though underused in an age where capitalism and the “free market” as dictated by Friedman rules the zeitgeist of the day, provides an important lesson to all wanting to preach about the environment: to do good, one must first individually do things right.

Starbucks – Being a good corporate citizen

Just as most of us feel uncomfortable that a person who may preach to us to do one thing but in fact is himself doing quite another, most of us will feel a sense of respect for the values (and actions) that Starbucks has identified itself with. Very early on in its business career, Starbucks had pledged to be a good corporate citizen, and believes in contributing to the environment which has provided it with profits.

Quite unlike the sportswear manufacturing industry that disgraced itself in the earlier decades that made profits through a “race to the bottom”, Starbucks wanted the entire industry to move forward through a “race to the top”, by only buying from the most sustainable, yet highest quality coffee growers. Even before the partnership with Conservation International, Starbucks had already given back to local communities to provide education and clean water supplies[7].

What makes reading Starbucks’ involvements in corporate social responsibility (CSR)  so pleasing is because of how it hasn’t shied away from the matter as firms often seek to do, but rather tackled the issue head on and really made it part of its philosophy instead of an afterthought. It has reaped enormous benefits for the company, with employees and consumers alike praising the contributions of Starbucks and making the company have one of the lowest employee turnover rates in the entire industry.

We can make use of the multitude of theories available in the presentation slides for an in-depth ethical analysis of what Starbucks did right, though I feel the most succinct would be to examine it from the Kantian point of view. Starbucks’ contributions make it a good corporate citizen by keeping to the principle of universality: first, it pays a premium for top-quality coffee beans, which is something that the farmers would do if the roles were reversed, for fairness. In the meantime, Starbucks’ CSR efforts have really benefited the lives of the local community through improving their education and health facilities; this is keeping in line with the principle of humanity – ensuring that there is no exploitation of any individual that goes against his autonomy.

All roads lead to Kant?

Like I mentioned in the previous paragraph, I adopt Occam’s razor by stating my belief that there is no need to make use of stakeholder, social contract, or even Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness in the analysis of Starbucks’ actions in corporate social responsibility, because Kant’s categorical imperative cuts through to the “bare bones” of environmental ethics, at least in determining what should be the ethical behaviour of a firm. The social contract theory, which states that there is an unspoken “contract” of values and morals that should be adhered to by the company, is to me merely an extension of Kantian theory.

Ultimately, Kantian theory allows us to articulate why we feel some parties are more ethical than others (especially when comparing between Al Gore and Starbucks), but is rather limited in determing who exactly should have what done to them in order to benefit the entire community. The categorical imperative is great in determining how to behave ethically, though it is the what that businesses like Starbucks are interested in. I believe that businesses should first take a good hard look at themselves through the Kantian perspective, and then make use of the stakeholder theory – which is where it comes in useful – to determine what exactly they have to do to contribute to the community at large.

Why I am a Rawlsian

Note: I am horrified, after a stern reminder by a reader who commented, about the audacious and incorrect claims made about Kevin Carter, which I have since researched and corrected. I sincerely apologise for my errors made prior to this revision.

Disclaimer: This paper is not so much about the death of Kevin Carter as it is about the contrast between ethical arguments. To reply a reader’s comment about “the point” of the article, it is essentially to compare the Rawls and Nozick theories with the use of an example.

A paper I submitted for Ethics.

An African girl, so skinny that the shape of her bones are clearly showing on her body, sits in the middle of what was once a huge savannah; the famine had wiped out the fertility of the land. She crawls slowly towards where she perceives is a United Nations aid camp, which is not within the line of sight, at least not for the viewer. Then the terrifying sight of a bird, its head bald and eyes expressionless, but with the body language of a beast ready for the kill, swoops down just behind the girl. The girl pauses, exhausted from the crawl – she has been crawling for days. Kevin Carter, a South African photographer, snaps a few photos and wonders quietly if the vulture will spread his wings for a more majestic shot.

A man who was just doing his job, perhaps? The photograph he eventually produced won the Pulitzer Prize in 1994 for feature photography – but Carter never stopped feeling guilty about the possibility that the girl might have survived should he have chosen to intervene after taking his award-winning photo. In a report by The New York Times he told an interviewer how he sat under a tree for a long time, “smoking cigarettes and crying”.  Carter ultimately killed himself, for a variety of reasons, soon after he was awarded.

But Robert Nozick would have told him that there was just original acquisition in this situation. The girl’s parents chose to stay in Sudan, chose to farm here, and hence should also inherit the nastiness of the situation in which they found themselves. Nozick’s theory extends also to the children: if the parents are destitute, the children are destitute and justly so. A Nozickian might have looked at the situation and not have understood why Carter felt so guilty when he was doing nothing wrong.

To me, using Nozick’s theory for ethical analysis strikes me as one that approaches (or is) a slippery slope: how do you decide how far to go in deciding if something is truly “justly” acquired or not? The remains of Troy and Ephesus has been unceremoniously dug up by German and British archaeologists, and both of them claim just original acquisition to its ruins. For that matter, can it be considered just that a large petrochemical company discovers fossil fuel in another country and then, because of their right of discovery, claim sovereignty to the billions of dollars they stand to gain from its sale? There is an inherent weakness of suggesting that just original acquisition can be used as a criterion for analysing if something is ethical or not. Nozick’s theory, aptly titled the “entitlement theory”, almost suggests that there is no need for charitable behaviour, since nobody is justifiably obligated to do so.

John Rawls’ rival theory of “justice as fairness” can be considered the opposite of Nozick’s entitlement theory: that there is a need to compensate individuals who find themselves at disadvantaged starting points in society. Justice, to Rawls, is about providing equality of opportunity – the first principle of his theory. That means that there needs to be a central authority that has the ability and legitimacy to distribute resources fairly and equally. Rawls’ theory, in sum, appeals for the importance of redistributing resources to ensure that the least advantaged in society have as equal an opportunity as the most advantaged as possible.

Carter found himself possessed, albeit only after he was far away from the Sudanese girl, by a Rawlsian view: he had a moral right to help the girl, from this point of view, but instead he had taken some photos and waited for a better shot rather than putting down his camera to save the girl from possibly a cruel death that was of no fault of her own. Carter, like the rest of us when we look at the photograph, was troubled not by the scene itself, but by the unresolved possibility that he, of all people, could have done something, yet chose not to.

The girl might have survived the famine, grown up to be a big and strong girl, perhaps a great politician, or even a photographer, for that matter. All that was needed, perhaps, was somebody to lend a helping hand at the most difficult time of her life. Instead, when Carter was provided an opportunity to do so, he decided to stick to taking his photographs and leave the situation completely up to fate.

Granted, not many of us are war photographers and are unlikely to face a situation so extreme in today’s world. But we do question many of the supposedly altruistic behaviour of profit-making institutions and wonder if these institutions are, apart from being somewhat hypocritical (a company like BP, for instance, talking about environmental sustainability after a massive oil spill), even obligated to participate in corporate social responsibility. Theories of the economy that are somewhat similar to Nozick’s entitlement theory include the (in)famous Milton “there-is-no-free-lunch” Friedman’s laissez-faire theory of capitalism, that the corporation is responsible for only the shareholders and to no one else, and hence should not spend the corporation’s money on purposes which do not directly line the pockets of its owners.

But if the corporation as a legal entity is considered a “being” – as the movie The Corporation (which Milton Friedman made a guest appearance in) defines – then doesn’t that make the corporation responsible for other human beings? Logically speaking, no; since individuals – in Singapore and many other countries – are not obligated to donate part of their salaries to charity, corporations should similarly not be obligated to donate part of their profits for other endeavours. But just as similarly as a Rawlsian would frown upon unaltruistic behaviour from an individual, he too would also be discontent with the unaltruistic behaviour shown by a corporation.

If Friedman had been the photographer, would he have saved the child? If the corporation bears no responsibility of saving individuals apart from their shareholders, then what rules do the individual follow? Do individuals bear no responsibility for other individuals apart from themselves? If this were true, then what Carter did (or, rather, did not do) must have been acceptable, from Friedman’s point of view. The generalisability of Friedman’s ethical theories into the individual landscape is rather doubtful indeed.

Nozick’s and Friedman’s theories, as well as other free-market theories, suggest that individual transactions and decisions are of ultimate importance. It seems to be rather hollow, however, to suggest that it is always ethical to behave in such a selfish, unaltruistic manner. A drug dealer would get away with harming others, since the money obtained from such a transaction, despite whatever detriment it deals to the individual who purchases it, must have been justly obtained. Nozick and Friedman only assume that the individual always makes the right decision and do no harm to others; but Rawls and Aristotle suggest that we should make decisions that are fair, equitable and have the ability to serve the public at large.

Aristotle, in fact, believed that being an ethical person involves being an excellent man – with a proper moral character, by toeing between the middle line of two extremes. In the days following his suicide, newspapers around the world spoke of the dichotomy that Carter faced: he could have either thrown down his camera and ran to the girl to save her, or he could continued doing what he did, taking photographs that depicted the horrors of the famine, and showing it to the world. Ultimately, he chose the latter – but could there perhaps, as Aristotle would have said, a middle line that he could have toed? Surely, he could have gotten aid to save the girl in need? These are questions that he never got to know and we will never get to find out, but are all dilemmas that face all of us when we wonder if corporations could have toed the middle line as well.