World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article
 

Michael P. Fay

Michael P. Fay
Born (1975-05-30) May 30, 1975
St. Louis, Missouri, United States
Parent(s) George and Randy Fay

Michael Peter Fay (born May 30, 1975) is an American who briefly gained international attention in 1994 when he was sentenced to caning in Singapore for theft and vandalism at age 18. Although caning is a routine court sentence in Singapore, its unfamiliarity to Americans created a backlash, and Fay's case was believed to be the first caning involving an American citizen.[1] The number of cane strokes in Fay's sentence was ultimately reduced from six to four after U.S. officials requested leniency.

Contents

  • Early life 1
  • Theft and vandalism 2
  • Response 3
    • From the United States government 3.1
    • Public reaction 3.2
  • Aftermath 4
  • References 5
  • Further reading 6
  • External links 7

Early life

Michael Fay was born in

  • The Singapore Government's response to the American Embassy's statement, April 1, 1994

External links

  • Latif, Asad (1994). The Flogging of Singapore: The Michael Fay Affair. Singapore: Times Books International. ISBN 981-204-530-9
  • Baratham, Gopal (1994). The Caning of Michael Fay. Singapore: KRP Publication. ISBN 981-00-5747-4
  • Reyes, Alejandro (May 25, 1994). Rough Justice: A Caning in Singapore Stirs Up a Fierce Debate About Crime And Punishment, Asiaweek, Hong Kong.
  • The Asiaweek Newsmap (April 27, 1994). Asiaweek.
  • Chew, Valerie (August 5, 2009). "Michael Fay", Singapore Infopedia. National Library Board.

Further reading

  1. ^ a b Charles P. Wallace (March 9, 1994). "Singapore Blasts Back at Clinton in Caning Case". Los Angeles Times. 
  2. ^ a b c d e Alejandro Reyes, "Rough Justice: A Caning in Singapore Stirs Up a Fierce Debate About Crime And Punishment", Asiaweek, Hong Kong, May 25, 1994.
  3. ^ Richardson, Michael (May 5, 1994). "Responding to Clinton's Plea, Singapore Cuts 6 Lashes to 4". The New York Times. 
  4. ^ a b c Tan Ooi Boon (October 7, 1993). "9 foreign students held for vandalism". The Straits Times (Singapore). p. 1.
  5. ^ a b Philip Shenon (March 16, 1994). "A Flogging Sentence Brings a Cry of Pain in U.S.". The New York Times.
  6. ^ "Cane teen says he's innocent", Daily News, New York, June 22, 1994.
  7. ^ Charles P. Wallace, "Ohio Youth to be Flogged in Singapore", Los Angeles Times, March 4, 1994.
  8. ^ Ian Stewart, "Flogging for vandal", South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), April 22, 1994.
  9. ^ Elena Chong, "Fay loses appeal", The Straits Times, Singapore, April 1, 1994
  10. ^ Karen Fawcett (March 9, 1994). "Americans in Singapore condemn caning for teen". USA Today (Washington D.C.). 
  11. ^ William Branigin, "Singapore Reduces American's Sentence", Washington Post, May 5, 1994.
  12. ^ Philip Serwell and Patricia Wilson, "'Mistake' says Clinton as American is caned", The Daily Telegraph, London, May 6, 1994.
  13. ^ Philip Shenon, "Singapore Carries Out Caning of U.S. Teenager", International Herald Tribune, Paris, May 6, 1994.
  14. ^ Rocco Parascandola (August 1994). "Singapore Hosts Some Most Unruly Guests". American Journalism Review. 
  15. ^ "What US columnists say about Fay's caning". The Straits Times (Singapore). April 8, 1994. 
  16. ^ a b E.g. "Don't copy Singapore", USA Today, Washington DC, April 5, 1994.
  17. ^ P.M. Raman, "Branding the Bad Hats for Life", The Straits Times, Singapore, September 13, 1974.
  18. ^ Andrea Stone, "Whipping penalty judged too harsh -- by some", USA Today, Washington, March 10, 1994.
  19. ^ Mike Royko, "Readers get 'behind' flogging of vandal", Daily News, New York, March 30, 1994.
  20. ^ "Travel Advisory -- When in Rome ...", Los Angeles Times, March 19, 1994.
  21. ^ David Usborne, "'Joe Public' backs caning of American", The Independent on Sunday, London, April 3, 1994.
  22. ^ "The Road From Singapore", Daily News, New York, June 22, 1994.
  23. ^ "Larry King Live", CNN, June 29, 1994.
  24. ^ Richard Hubbard (Reuters), "Singapore says Fay recovers nicely", Washington Times, May 8, 1994.
  25. ^ a b "Michael Fay," People Magazine, December 26, 1994, p.60.
  26. ^ "Drug Rehab For Teen Caned In Singapore," Chicago Tribune, September 29, 1994, p.14.
  27. ^ "The Nation," USA Today, Washington DC, September 29, 1994, p.03A.
  28. ^ "Teen Punished In Singapore Has Drug Habit - Michael Fay Was Sniffing Butane," Times-Picayune, New Orleans, September 29, 1994, p.A24.
  29. ^ "Q&A," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 13, 2003, p.B2.
  30. ^ "Boy Caned in Singapore Makes News Again," Christian Science Monitor, Boston, April 9, 1998, p.18.
  31. ^ "Drug Charges Dropped," Asiaweek, Hong Kong, June 29, 1998, p.1.
  32. ^ "Graffiti man faces Singapore caning". BBC News. June 25, 2010. 

References

In June 2010 Fay's case was recalled in international news, after another foreigner in Singapore, Swiss IT consultant Oliver Fricker, was sentenced to five months in jail and three strokes of the cane for vandalising a train.[32]

Several months after returning to the U.S., Fay suffered burns to his hands and face after a [28] In 1996, he was cited in Florida for a number of violations, including careless driving, reckless driving, not reporting a crash and having an open bottle of alcohol in a car.[29] Later, in 1998, still in Florida, Fay was arrested for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, charges to which he confessed but was acquitted[30] because of technical errors in his arrest.[31]

After his release from prison in June 1994, Fay returned to the United States to live with his biological father.[22] He gave several television interviews, including one with his American lawyer on CNN with Larry King on June 29, 1994, in which he admitted taking road signs but denied vandalizing cars.[23] He also claimed that he was ill-treated during questioning, but had shaken hands with the caning operative after his four strokes had been administered. This detail, together with the information that Fay sat down when he met a U.S. consular official the day after his caning,[24] contrasts with some of the more lurid descriptions of Singapore caning ("bits of flesh fly with each stroke", etc.) that had been carried in the Western press.[16]

Aftermath After Fay's punishment was carried out, the

Public opinion polls were divided, but mostly supportive of Fay's punishment.[18] A significant number of Americans were in favor of the caning, claiming that Singapore had a right to use corporal punishment and that the United States did not mete out severe enough punishment to its own juvenile offenders.[19] Others pointed out that once Americans go abroad, they are subject to the laws and penal codes of the country they visit.[20] The Singapore Embassy received "a flood of letters" from Americans strongly supporting Fay's punishment, and some polls showed a majority of Americans favored it.[21]

Some commentaries treated the Michael Fay affair as a clash of cultures between Asian values and the differing view of human rights common in liberal Western countries.

Following Fay's sentence, the case received wide coverage by the U.S. and world media.[14] The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times ran editorials and op-eds condemning the punishment.[15] USA Today reported that caning involved "bits of flesh fly[ing] with each stroke."[16] This latter detail was apparently taken from descriptions (originally derived from a 1974 press conference)[17] of a much larger number of strokes, for more severe crimes such as rape and robbery.

Public reaction

Fay received four strokes of the cane on May 5, 1994, at Queenstown Remand Centre.[12][13]

Nevertheless, then and late President Ong Teng Cheong commuted Fay's caning from six to four strokes as a gesture of respect toward Clinton.[11] Shiu's sentence was later also reduced, from twelve strokes to six, after a similar clemency appeal.

The Singaporean government pointed out that Singaporeans who break the law faced the same punishments as Fay,[1] and that Singapore's laws had kept the city free of vandalism and violence of the kind seen in New York.[10] The Straits Times criticized "interference" by the U.S. government and found it surprising that the President had found time to become involved, given the various foreign-policy and other crises it was facing.[5]

Then-U.S. President Bill Clinton called Fay's punishment extreme and mistaken, and pressured the Singaporean government to grant Fay clemency from caning. Two dozen U.S. senators signed a letter to the Singaporean government also appealing for clemency.

The official position of the United States government was that although it recognized Singapore's right to punish Fay within due process of law the punishment of caning was excessive for a teenager who committed a non-violent crime. The United States embassy in Singapore pointed out that the graffiti damage to the cars was not permanent, but caning would leave Fay with physical scars.[2]

From the United States government

Response

Fay's lawyers appealed, arguing that the Vandalism Act provided caning only for indelible forms of graffiti vandalism, and that the damaged cars had been cheaply restored to their original condition.[9]

Under the 1966 Vandalism Act, originally passed to curb the spread of political graffiti and which specifically penalized vandalism of government property,[2] Fay was sentenced on March 3, 1994 to four months in jail, a fine of 3,500 Singapore dollars (US$2,214 or £1,514 at the time), and six strokes of the cane.[7] Shiu, who pleaded not guilty, was sentenced to eight months in prison and 12 strokes of the cane.[8]

The police eventually arrested a 16-year-old suspect, Andy Shiu Chi Ho from Hong Kong. He was not caught vandalizing cars, but was charged with driving his father's car without a license. After questioning Shiu, the police questioned several expatriate students from the Singapore American School, including Fay, and charged them with more than fifty counts of vandalism.[4] Fay pleaded guilty to vandalizing the cars in addition to stealing road signs. He later maintained that he was advised that such a plea would preclude caning and that his confession was false, that he never vandalized any cars, and that the only crime he committed was stealing signs.[5][6]

In October 1993, The Straits Times, Singapore's main English-language newspaper, reported that car vandalism in Singapore was on the rise.[4] Cars parked at apartment blocks were being damaged with hot tar, paint remover, red spray paint, and hatchets. Taxi drivers complained that their tires were slashed. In the city center, cars were found with deep scratches and dents. One man complained that he had to refinish his car six times in six months.[4]

Theft and vandalism

Although Fay mostly lived with his father after the divorce, he later moved to Singapore to live with his mother and his stepfather, Marco Chan, and was enrolled in the Singapore American School.[2]

[3], a fact which his lawyer would later claim made Fay not responsible for his actions.attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder As a child, Michael was diagnosed with [2]

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.