Name: Zheng Jiayin Class: 5E Index number: 10

General Paper Essay Public Shaming --- Is it morally and socially acceptable?

Due to the prevalence of technology in modern society and the availability of local interactive online portals such as Stomp, Singaporeans have recently been drawn into the nationwide phenomenon of public shaming on such online portals. As with all other trends, public shaming is usually accompanied by moral and social issues. The act of public shaming encompasses the explicit exposure of evidence of poor public behaviour online where it is constantly viewed and judged by members of the public. There are three parties involved in an incident of public shaming --- the subject, the individual who posted the photograph or video footage on an online portal, and members of the public. Due to the presence of the judgmental eyes of society bearing upon the guilty party in the photographic evidence, it becomes difficult to pronounce which party has crossed the line of morality further. Has the offender now become a victim? Which is worse --- committing the public act itself or exposing the subject and his bad behaviour to public eyes? By closely examining the implications of public shaming on an individual who has committed a public offence and the society, one feels that public shaming is neither morally nor socially acceptable.

On an individual level, a sensitive issue of intrusion of privacy will be raised for the subject in question. After evidence of his disgraceful public behaviour is broadcasted online, he will be subjected to harsh public assault and criticism. Ethically, it is already wrong to take pictures of others without notification, and this is made worse by displaying them on online portals for everyones viewing. Furthermore, the public lambasting the subject will receive does not come from strangers alone. Due to fact that the countenances of the misbehavers are often photographed vividly, there is a high possibility of him being publicly humiliated

and bludgeoned by people who recognise him in the photographic evidence. This will not only affect the subject, but also his family members and the people around him as well. They will have to bear the burden of public admonishment together with the subject, and the toll it must exert on one is great. Also, even if the act of public shaming does have its intended effect on the wrongdoer and results in his change of behaviour, the photographic evidence of his past misdeed still exists, and no one will be able to testify to his alteration for the better. As the photographs on online portals only reflect the uglier side of one and do not track any future transformations, the public will continue to pass judgments on the subjects character based on his display of poor public behaviour before. The public censure that the subject will receive due to the online exposure of his poor public conduct is therefore permanent, which makes the act of public shaming neither morally nor socially acceptable.

Another pitfall involved in public shaming is that the photographs and video footages of public misdemeanour may not mirror the entire truth. In one such case, a man featured in a pictorial entry posted on Stomp illustrating how the commuters fell asleep immediately after a woman carrying a baby boarded the train denounced the story as false, claiming that he was truly asleep. In another, a motorist whose car was featured in a photograph under a covered shelter meant as a pick-up and drop-off point defended himself by relating that he was dropping off groceries for his mother when it was raining and took only five minutes. However, a member of public who does not wholly understand the context of the situation is very likely to jump to the wrong conclusions after facing the evidence of public misbehaviour, resulting in the undeserving public reprimand of the subject. In this case, the individual who has decided to post the photographs on online portals has stepped furthest over the line of acceptability.

On a national level, the growing trend of public shaming can cause a negative impact on society by creating a culture of surveillance in Singapore through online portals. Due to the inhibiting fear of being publicly castigated after

committing a public act of misconduct, people may develop an increasing sense of uneasiness and insecurity even in public areas. With the convenience of builtin camera phones, it is increasingly difficult for one to feel comfortable in public. People would constantly feel scrutinized by others, and this may lead to emotional repression of oneself. Public shaming is in itself a punitive action, and can serve its purpose of deterring people from exhibiting poor public behaviour again, but only by instilling fear of public humiliation and condemnation in their hearts. In that way, people will cease to misbehave in public not because they know that it is wrong, but thoroughly due to their fear of facing the repercussions. On a national level, the public shaming phenomenon could induce a wellbehaving society that is built on the fear of receiving public punishment. It is thus evident that public shaming is defying morality and is not socially acceptable as well.

However, public shaming does stem from a positive motive and serves a public interest by getting Singaporeans to display better public conduct and refine their social etiquettes. The individual posting the photograph or video footage of the public demonstration of poor behaviour on an online portal has a positive intent in heightening public awareness towards the disgraceful social issue in hope that people will change for the better. But, the public-spiritedness of the person posting the picture online and the offensive public acts of one still do not justify the severe negative implications of public shaming on an individual and national level. If the objective of public shaming is to get Singapore citizens to conduct themselves appropriately in public, then the morally and socially acceptable solution is education, not punishment. The nature of what is right and what is wrong of public behaviour should come instinctively to Singaporeans by educating them, not by ensuring that they would be properly punished for public misdemeanour through public shaming so that they would not commit it again.

In the light of the negative impact that public shaming has on the individual and society, one can conclude that public shaming is unacceptable in moral and

social terms. However, such a trend is widely encouraged in Singapore by local online portal Stomp, which carries an extensive influence over Singaporeans. Thus, as individuals, we have to make the decision whether to participate in public shaming ourselves. Do you want to live in a society of constant surveillance? Do you want a sense of insecurity to seep into yourself when in public? Do you want to live with the fear of being publicly punished if you display poor public behaviour? If the trend of public shaming were to continue, these would be what we have to live with. Furthermore, this phenomenon is not merely an issue for Singaporeans alone, as it can be elevated to a global level by popular networks such as Youtube. Therefore, public shaming should not be encouraged; and one hopes that the trend would come to a halt over time.