by Cheryl Lim

LAST week, I spent some time thinking about the different ways which people view and respond to laws. One category of people abide by laws out of fear of the legal repercussions that would follow otherwise.

Another category do so because they feel it's a matter of principle and a question of integrity. The laws enacted in our statutes today include penalties to deter people from committing offences.

They are there, to put it another way, to add teeth to the statutes. It might be safe to say that the majority of us belong to the first category and I sheepishly admit that I'm one of them.

My epiphany has its roots in a nondescript event one Saturday evening, when I was preparing to go for dinner with a friend.

We decided to check out a cosy Italian restaurant that had received glowing reviews in the press. It was around the corner. By that, I mean it lies a mere street away, and is located in a very suburban district.

We confirmed our plans to drink at dinner, as the reviews had also indicated that the restaurant had an affordable and good wine list.

Naturally, I took it that we were driving there. In another column about a week ago, I'd voiced my aversion to exercise and physical exertion.

My dinner partner disagreed and said that we should walk to the restaurant, as he isn't in favour of driving after drinking. Especially when he knew that we would be swigging more than a drop or two.

My immediate response: Who would catch us on that one street we would use? What are the odds of a road block just 1km from home? After all, we know that road blocks are mostly located downtown and, furthermore, are strategically situated near nightspots like Zouk in Kim Seng Road, and Clarke Quay.

Logic told me that the probability of being caught was almost nil. And of course I felt confident about handling my vehicle as I knew I wouldn't be getting myself totally sloshed.

He maintained his position - quite unwaveringly, I should add.

His position was that he doesn't comply with laws just because of legal reprisals, but that he does so as a matter of principle.

After a brief exchange of vehement views, the gulf separating our views of the law was clear.

Hypothetically, if you had some kind of amnesty from the law - say, you were like one of the powerful mutants in the movie X-Men - would you still comply with the laws of the land?

If not, what laws would you flout at first instance? The reason why there are legal repercussions is that most people cannot rely purely on their innate moral fibre to avoid breaking the law.

But, as Saturday's incident showed, legal reprisals are still not enough to deter people from breaking the law.

It is precisely because people of my ilk form the majority of any society's population that the Traffic Police use scare tactics in their anti-drink driving campaigns.

They are probably well aware that people respond best to what hurts them. Its latest posters include images of gory blood-covered accident victims and reminders that irresponsible attitudes to drink-driving can lead to the destruction of life. It tugs at the selfish sentiments of self-preservation inherent in humans.

People need to be reminded of what they stand to lose - be it careers, limbs or lives. I know this works, because wake-up calls like these - that point to the gravity of laws and the reason why they were enacted in the first place: to protect humans - are the only way to deal with people like me.

myp@sph.com.sg

For more my paper stories click here.