SINGAPORE has stern laws and rules to regulate people's lives, not even sparing their trivial mischief. Accustomed to the system, Singaporeans have become apprehensive about anything banned by law, because any violation—either a crime or a mere blunder—will incur sure penalties with little room for mitigation.
However, I applaud the reasonable reply by the National Parks Board to a suggestion that dogs be banned from the Botanical Gardens. The Board reassured park-visitors of their basic rights, declaring that it would not forbid them to bring along their pets.
It is true that discipline and order are essential to a gracious society, and strict rules are needed to ensure that people behave well. Yet the best guarantee for civilised conduct lies rather in good habits of the population.
In Singapore, penalties are stipulated for any undesirable act causing harm or trouble in traffic, public health, environment and public order. One can find warning signs everywhere, such as “Smoking is strictly forbidden”,“No littering”, “No sitting on the fence”, “Jaywalking is prohibited”, “Penalties for damaging plants”, and “No noise”。 This has become a feature of Singapore's social culture.
No doubt, through interactions among themselves, most Singaporeans have formed habits of civilised conduct. Yet the long years of rule by law have made them dependent on decrees and bans to know their Dos and Don'ts. Hence the call for banning dogs from a park and for restricting the import of pets.
Except for bans, restrictions and fines, is there really no other way to instil public-mindedness in the population？
To bring about a gracious society with good citizens, must the legislative mechanism be given such dominance that a new law is called for whenever problems crop up？
In fact, persuasion and edification would do well to aid judicial measures in building a gracious society with public-minded citizens. A people who are tolerant, open-minded and reasonable would be a surer guarantee for such a society.
To govern with the right extent of tolerance is an art. Confucius （551-479 BC） once praised Zichan, a contemporary statesman, for his wise policy on running the State of Zheng. “By tempering penalty with mercy, and adding sternness to clemency,” remarked the philosopher, “he achieved moderation in governance.”
If the past can serve as a guide today, I believe people would comply more willingly if harsh bans and tactful handling were to balance and complement each other. This would be more welcome and effective than resorting to bans and fines.
Severe punishment is necessary, of course, for serious evil-doings that disrupt public security and order, including felony and commercial crimes. Yet it is risky to restrict all activities of the population by introducing law after law.
Too much restriction may cause pressure, tension and lasting apprehension not only in the relations among individuals, but also in those between citizens, society, and the state.
不要樣樣都“禁”！
長(zhǎng)期生活在一個(gè)嚴(yán)刑峻法,連一點(diǎn)一滴的生活細(xì)節(jié)都有法規(guī)約束的國(guó)家里,對(duì)任何明文禁止的行為,特別敏感。因?yàn)橹灰圆恍⌒?事不管大小,一旦違例,必定受到制裁,沒有任何回旋的余地。
針對(duì)國(guó)家公園局答復(fù)有關(guān)“禁止攜狗進(jìn)入植物園”建議,確定不會(huì)禁止公眾攜狗進(jìn)入植物園,并對(duì)該局合理的回復(fù),曉以游園者的基本權(quán)利,我深表贊同。
要維系一個(gè)優(yōu)雅的社會(huì),需要的是紀(jì)律和秩序。實(shí)行嚴(yán)格法治,對(duì)人的行為進(jìn)行調(diào)整和規(guī)范,并由此培養(yǎng)出人們講秩序,守紀(jì)律的習(xí)慣無疑是的途徑。
在新加坡,任何制造交通,衛(wèi)生、環(huán)境、治安事故等不良行為,都會(huì)受到處罰。因此,諸如“禁止吸煙”、“禁止亂丟垃圾”、“禁止坐矮墻”、“禁止橫越馬路”、“禁止損壞樹木”、“禁止喧嘩”
等等的警示,已成為一種突出的文化現(xiàn)象。
無可置疑,大部分的新加坡國(guó)民在公共生活中互相影響和互相監(jiān)督,已經(jīng)自發(fā)地養(yǎng)成文明習(xí)慣,講秩序,守紀(jì)律。然而,長(zhǎng)期的法治生活,鑄造了新加坡人特有的素質(zhì),凡事都要通過法規(guī)和社會(huì)政策引導(dǎo),如建議“禁止攜狗進(jìn)入植物園”、“嚴(yán)格限制寵物狗入口”等等。
難道除了從嚴(yán)、從禁、重罰之外,就不能培養(yǎng)人們的社會(huì)責(zé)任？
一發(fā)現(xiàn)問題就立即號(hào)召立法,把任何生活細(xì)節(jié)都?xì)w納入法規(guī)的范圍,法律意識(shí)高乎一切,難道就是優(yōu)化社會(huì)環(huán)境和養(yǎng)成良好的公民素質(zhì)的方法？
優(yōu)雅的現(xiàn)代精神文明的發(fā)展,在以社會(huì)法治化和秩序化為主導(dǎo)的過程中,配合相應(yīng)的道德感化,并提倡行為文明和公共精神。具有寬和、容忍和講理的品德,更能保證和推進(jìn)社會(huì)精神文明的發(fā)展。
掌握“寬”的尺度是一門學(xué)問?！皩捯詽?jì)猛,猛以濟(jì)寬,政以是和”是孔子贊賞政治家子產(chǎn)“對(duì)嚴(yán)厲輔以寬容,對(duì)寬容輔以嚴(yán)厲”的治國(guó)主張。古為今用,如果能出色地協(xié)調(diào)“嚴(yán)厲”與“寬容”,平衡兩者,付諸實(shí)踐,豈不比動(dòng)輒運(yùn)用法制權(quán)利、非禁不可、不罰難行的處理方式,更得民心？
當(dāng)然,在治理危及公共秩序、重大刑事或種種商業(yè)犯罪方面,實(shí)行嚴(yán)查重辦,重罪重罰,不得手軟；但把人的一切行為限制在一定的秩序之內(nèi),動(dòng)不動(dòng)就制定新的法律條規(guī),對(duì)人的行為進(jìn)行限制,可能會(huì)造成日常生活中,人與人之間的關(guān)系,個(gè)人與社會(huì)、與國(guó)家的關(guān)系,都因?yàn)榉N種過度的行為規(guī)范,造成心理壓迫,惶惶不可終日。
However, I applaud the reasonable reply by the National Parks Board to a suggestion that dogs be banned from the Botanical Gardens. The Board reassured park-visitors of their basic rights, declaring that it would not forbid them to bring along their pets.
It is true that discipline and order are essential to a gracious society, and strict rules are needed to ensure that people behave well. Yet the best guarantee for civilised conduct lies rather in good habits of the population.
In Singapore, penalties are stipulated for any undesirable act causing harm or trouble in traffic, public health, environment and public order. One can find warning signs everywhere, such as “Smoking is strictly forbidden”,“No littering”, “No sitting on the fence”, “Jaywalking is prohibited”, “Penalties for damaging plants”, and “No noise”。 This has become a feature of Singapore's social culture.
No doubt, through interactions among themselves, most Singaporeans have formed habits of civilised conduct. Yet the long years of rule by law have made them dependent on decrees and bans to know their Dos and Don'ts. Hence the call for banning dogs from a park and for restricting the import of pets.
Except for bans, restrictions and fines, is there really no other way to instil public-mindedness in the population？
To bring about a gracious society with good citizens, must the legislative mechanism be given such dominance that a new law is called for whenever problems crop up？
In fact, persuasion and edification would do well to aid judicial measures in building a gracious society with public-minded citizens. A people who are tolerant, open-minded and reasonable would be a surer guarantee for such a society.
To govern with the right extent of tolerance is an art. Confucius （551-479 BC） once praised Zichan, a contemporary statesman, for his wise policy on running the State of Zheng. “By tempering penalty with mercy, and adding sternness to clemency,” remarked the philosopher, “he achieved moderation in governance.”
If the past can serve as a guide today, I believe people would comply more willingly if harsh bans and tactful handling were to balance and complement each other. This would be more welcome and effective than resorting to bans and fines.
Severe punishment is necessary, of course, for serious evil-doings that disrupt public security and order, including felony and commercial crimes. Yet it is risky to restrict all activities of the population by introducing law after law.
Too much restriction may cause pressure, tension and lasting apprehension not only in the relations among individuals, but also in those between citizens, society, and the state.
不要樣樣都“禁”！
長(zhǎng)期生活在一個(gè)嚴(yán)刑峻法,連一點(diǎn)一滴的生活細(xì)節(jié)都有法規(guī)約束的國(guó)家里,對(duì)任何明文禁止的行為,特別敏感。因?yàn)橹灰圆恍⌒?事不管大小,一旦違例,必定受到制裁,沒有任何回旋的余地。
針對(duì)國(guó)家公園局答復(fù)有關(guān)“禁止攜狗進(jìn)入植物園”建議,確定不會(huì)禁止公眾攜狗進(jìn)入植物園,并對(duì)該局合理的回復(fù),曉以游園者的基本權(quán)利,我深表贊同。
要維系一個(gè)優(yōu)雅的社會(huì),需要的是紀(jì)律和秩序。實(shí)行嚴(yán)格法治,對(duì)人的行為進(jìn)行調(diào)整和規(guī)范,并由此培養(yǎng)出人們講秩序,守紀(jì)律的習(xí)慣無疑是的途徑。
在新加坡,任何制造交通,衛(wèi)生、環(huán)境、治安事故等不良行為,都會(huì)受到處罰。因此,諸如“禁止吸煙”、“禁止亂丟垃圾”、“禁止坐矮墻”、“禁止橫越馬路”、“禁止損壞樹木”、“禁止喧嘩”
等等的警示,已成為一種突出的文化現(xiàn)象。
無可置疑,大部分的新加坡國(guó)民在公共生活中互相影響和互相監(jiān)督,已經(jīng)自發(fā)地養(yǎng)成文明習(xí)慣,講秩序,守紀(jì)律。然而,長(zhǎng)期的法治生活,鑄造了新加坡人特有的素質(zhì),凡事都要通過法規(guī)和社會(huì)政策引導(dǎo),如建議“禁止攜狗進(jìn)入植物園”、“嚴(yán)格限制寵物狗入口”等等。
難道除了從嚴(yán)、從禁、重罰之外,就不能培養(yǎng)人們的社會(huì)責(zé)任？
一發(fā)現(xiàn)問題就立即號(hào)召立法,把任何生活細(xì)節(jié)都?xì)w納入法規(guī)的范圍,法律意識(shí)高乎一切,難道就是優(yōu)化社會(huì)環(huán)境和養(yǎng)成良好的公民素質(zhì)的方法？
優(yōu)雅的現(xiàn)代精神文明的發(fā)展,在以社會(huì)法治化和秩序化為主導(dǎo)的過程中,配合相應(yīng)的道德感化,并提倡行為文明和公共精神。具有寬和、容忍和講理的品德,更能保證和推進(jìn)社會(huì)精神文明的發(fā)展。
掌握“寬”的尺度是一門學(xué)問?！皩捯詽?jì)猛,猛以濟(jì)寬,政以是和”是孔子贊賞政治家子產(chǎn)“對(duì)嚴(yán)厲輔以寬容,對(duì)寬容輔以嚴(yán)厲”的治國(guó)主張。古為今用,如果能出色地協(xié)調(diào)“嚴(yán)厲”與“寬容”,平衡兩者,付諸實(shí)踐,豈不比動(dòng)輒運(yùn)用法制權(quán)利、非禁不可、不罰難行的處理方式,更得民心？
當(dāng)然,在治理危及公共秩序、重大刑事或種種商業(yè)犯罪方面,實(shí)行嚴(yán)查重辦,重罪重罰,不得手軟；但把人的一切行為限制在一定的秩序之內(nèi),動(dòng)不動(dòng)就制定新的法律條規(guī),對(duì)人的行為進(jìn)行限制,可能會(huì)造成日常生活中,人與人之間的關(guān)系,個(gè)人與社會(huì)、與國(guó)家的關(guān)系,都因?yàn)榉N種過度的行為規(guī)范,造成心理壓迫,惶惶不可終日。