By Asif Ullah Khan

Apart from freedom of expression, late Lee Kuan Yew, the man who made tiny city-state Singapore into a developed country, disliked chewing gum.

Lee Kuan was ridiculed for introducing the ban on chewing gum in 1992 but he openly defended the ban, saying it was a part of tidiness and good behaviour. According to Singapore Statutes Online, the first-time penalty for the selling of gum can be as high as $100,000 or a prison sentence of up to two years. However, certain chewing gums that have medical benefits are allowed. Lee Kaun said that one of the main reasons for the ban was that the chewing gum was not properly disposed of in designated garbage receptacles, which was costing the government a huge amount. The other reason was that it was threatening the function and efficiency of the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) as people often left the chewing gum in the doors, which were not properly closed and thus interrupted the service of the MRT trains.

In the case of Singapore, it is understandable. But a judge taking offence to chewing gum in Pakistan is very surprising where there is no ban on chewing gum or public spitting.

Recently, Additional District and Sessions Judge of Islamabad rejected an anticipatory bail of a person because he was chewing gum in the courtroom.

Judge Mohammad Adnan on January 31 dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by Yasir Arafat under section 498 of the Criminal Procedure Code because Arafat was chewing gum inside the courtroom.

When the Islamabad High Court member inspection team sought a report in this regard, Judge Adnan in a written report said that it was not within the norms and practices of the court to allow an accused to chew gum inside the courtroom.

“Such acts of interruptions are bound to ridicule the authority of the court and lower the morale of police authorities to investigate him,” he added.

The judge said as a pre-condition of ad-interim bail, the accused must regularly attend the court till the final disposal of the case. But he did not appear at first hearing and on the second when he appeared he was chewing gun in a way that it distracted him from performing his judicial function.

“Decorum/norms of the court was the key factor while passing such order so that people in general and those in particularly present in court must learn such norms and educate others,” the judge concluded.

Lead pic: Image by Hans Braxmeier from Pixabay