Why so punitive? A study on political economy and punishment in Singapore

Abstract

A rise in punitiveness worldwide has led many to theorise about the link between punitiveness and the ascension of neoliberalism. Singapore presents an interesting case where there is punitiveness and neoliberalism, but also various rehabilitative measures coupled with a communitarian ethos. By using the link between political economy and punishment, I sought to understand how our hybrid political economy shapes seemingly polarising attitudes towards crime and punishment. Based on my research, I argue the following to account for the prevalence of punitiveness in Singapore: communitarianism transforms the neoliberal trope of indual responsibility into the neoliberal individual as responsible for the nation, through the locus of the family, the community, and the economy. These make up key components of Singaporean consciousness. When crime happens, it is perceived as an attack on these moral and social fabrics of society, legitimising punitiveness. While there are rehabilitative measures in place, these measures largely only act to intervene in the lives of ‘problem’ citizens and rework them into state-sanctioned and publicly-approved, normative behaviour. It is hence punitive in itself. Further, the dissemination of national responsibility outwards to the tizens enables the view that structural difficulties are not the problem of the state. Thus, the state responds to the vicissitudes of crime by administering punitive punishment, justified through the communitarian ethos. Communitarianism in Singapore therefore advances punitiveness and enables the state to engage with the institutional logics of neoliberalism at a higher level. Hence, under the veneer of communitarianism, still lies neoliberalism.