Can caning end impeachment?
By Edward Neilan
SINGAPORE (JP): Administration of some "Singapore justice" has been suggested as one way out of the crime and punishment argument facing Bill Clinton and the American congress and people.
Would five strokes of the cane on the Presidential backside end the impeachment-censure dilemma and debate that is wrenching the collective American conscience?
Could we then close the issue and get on with our lives?
It is very humiliating -- and perhaps even illegal -- to mention inflicting physical pain as punishment on the President of the United States, even though his actions have inflicted serious psychological pain on many of his constituents. His misdeeds are more ridiculous than any bizarre punishment that could be suggested.
Such action would not be my own recommendation. But I have heard it mentioned frequently enough by American expatriate businessmen and Singaporeans here over the past few days that it bears repeating.
Clinton said the other day that he would accept any sort of punishment except impeachment. Maybe, just maybe, his offer to bend over and take the primitive swats -- a gesture that surely would not be accepted -- would be an act of contrition that would capture Americans' imaginations
Singapore, you will recall, is the place where a young American man was caned a few years ago for spray-painting graffiti on an automobile. An uproar ensued in the U.S. as human rights advocates and sentimentalists, decent folks and legalists, rose to condemn the sentencing as "cruel and unusual punishment."
But the young man was a guest here and had agreed to abide by the laws.
On a television program in Tokyo at the time, I was asked what I thought of the situation.
"He should take his punishment like a man," I said. "And then leave."
Following the advice of his parents and lawyers, he did just that. His tender bottom remained that way long after the flight back home across the Pacific.
Now, Singapore is no Banana Republic. Despite an overall aura of "Asian values" and punishment that ranges from caning for serious offenses by adults as well as minors to fines for chewing gum in the wrong part of town, it is a well-run society.
Singapore is such an ideal business setting, for example, that Caltex is moving its worldwide operations center here.
There is ample attractiveness in Singapore's own culture.
But American expatriates may arrive here and get in stride immediately with such familiar names as Citibank, Federal Express, Starbucks, The Coffee Bean, Morton's Steak House, Gap, Planet Hollywood, Borders Books, McDonald's, Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Sizzler and hotels like Sheraton, Hyatt, Westin and Marriott. The posh American Club on Scotts Road is, in many respects, an anachronism.
The American inns have the amenities but not the charisma to match local colonial-era icons like Raffles Hotel and The Goodwood Park.
It was not by accident that The Heritage Foundation of Washington D.C. announced recently that Singapore had replaced Hong Kong atop its Economic Freedom Index which it runs with the Asian Wall Street Journal newspaper.
In short, Singapore is a good friend of the United States. Its leaders, including paternalistic senior statesman and former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, often dispense wise advice to Washington on the China question.
So the comments heard here about Singapore justice in the American context should not be dismissed as entirely off-the- wall, facetious or flippant.
There is entirely too much of the "we're always right" attitude emanating from U.S. officials and media which translates abroad as uninformed arrogance.
There are several billion people around the globe who do not even know what "inside the Beltway" means.
Thinking hard, asking difficult questions and proposing some tough figurative, not literal, solutions may help us avoid such uncomfortable situations as the present Clinton denouement in the future.
The writer is a Tokyo-based analyst of Northeast Asian affairs and a Media Fellow at Hoover Institution, Stanford University.