I regard such scenarios similar to littering cases. If I chanced upon something on the streets/under the void deck, I don’t assume it’s someone else's junk and he prolly will come back to take it back. Cleanliness is one aspect of being civilized. To remain civilized, you would let it remain there? Being civilized is a thing- being silly is another.
“if its left behind the previous owner more so you should not have thrown it away”
That is hilarious. You wouldn’t? So if you saw the previous family leaving, your family took over the seats and saw like 3 ½ opened drinks + a plastic bags full of ketchup packets you will not move those stuffs away?
how can throwing stuff away left behind (if its the case) be an uncivilized act?
Just my thoughts
But if you perceive that intention to being equally selfish to the person whom has "reserved" the seat,then we need not have authority such as the Police Force altogether since impressing the law upon wrongdoers are selfish. If the intention is good and beneficial in shaping the society, there is no amount of selfishness in there.
You mean after we throw that tissue, we have to go find another place to sit ? that is downright stupid. These two intentions are exclusive and not related to the other. It's the same like us wiping wet seats on a bus with the intention to help dry it but by doing so, we should not sit on the sit since our intention initially was to only wipe it dry?So, you go around the bus wiping seats but refrain yourself from sitting on those seats.
It's the same case as when you wanna enter a toilet but someone placed a mop/obstructive object on the entrance. If your intention is to help remove the objects to allow entrance, yo u shouldn't enter the toilet since your prime intention was to help shift the object. So you will be banned from entering the toilet save your intention changes.
K you are making me confuse myself.
It's (perceived as) downright stupid if you behave like a perfect gracious, moral person in the real world. This whole thread have been a debate of selective reasoning, let the one without guile throw the first stone.
Dun be confused... you are trying to take advantage of the situation just as the person whom have reserved the seat.
Hahah, if it was me, the aunties would have wished they never met me We will see who will prevail in such a face-off when the police get called in to catch them for littering .
There is no "local custom" as you put it - in fact this informal poll puts just as many, if not more people who oppose this "custom". Hence it isn't a custom at all, but a simple act of selfishness.
If this is a custom, then queue cutting can be considered to be a custom as well.
As argued previously, if the owners fully expect the tissue NOT to disappear, they would leave their bags etc to book the seat, instead of leaving a tissue paper. By leaving a low item of value, they fully expect and forsee that it is likely that it will not be there when they return.
If they have so much faith in their tissue system, then use something more substantial to back up their claims.
To answer the following quote and the preceding exchange between CYRN and velaso, actually I will pick up tissue papers left behind even when I merely pass by the seats to buy food (ie I already have a seat). I do not merely wait for a situation where I need a seat before I will pick the tissue up and throw it away. Of course, should I need a seat, and a tissue paper is there, sure its fair game as well, whether I need the seat or not.
Hence, your theory on trying to take advantage of the situation does not always apply.
1. A disorderly accumulation of objects; a pile.
2. Carelessly discarded refuse, such as wastepaper: the litter in the streets after a parade.
This tissue acts only happen in town (from my observation) where
1. Seats are limited.
2. Meal times are fixed and short.
Well, if you are alone in CBD area durign lunch time. It is almost impossible to eat your lunch within the stipulated time (1 hr) without having someone or something to hold your seat for you.
If 1 person was to "chop" the whole table for 6 person, while the rest of the group went to buy lunch. Assuming the queue waiting time is about 20mins, is this practise better than tissue paper?
Or, the group should only find seats when their food are ready?
this looks like 1 of the challenges an increase in population has contributed. challenge the right to a seat!
its just 1 of the stress brought on. there has been a string of rants lately, in S'pore on the whole.
Actually, you should be referring to Singapore laws when trying to define litter and theft, and not "answers.com".
Quoted from ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH ACT:
Prohibition against throwing refuse, etc., in any public place
17. —(1) No person shall —
(a) deposit, drop, place or throw any dust, dirt, paper, ash, carcase, refuse, box, barrel, bale or any other article or thing in any public place;
Hence, under the law, dropping or placing a tissue packet on a seat in a hawker centre would fall under Section 17(1)(a) above.
Now onto theft.
Quoted from PENAL CODE:
378. Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
(g) A finds a ring lying on the high road, not in the possession of any person. A by taking it commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property.
Hence, there is no theft by taking a tissue paper packet lying in the middle of the food court.
Now onto criminal misappropriation
3. Dishonest misappropriation of property.
Quoted from PENAL CODE:
403. Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.
A person who finds property not in the possession of any other person, and takes such property for the purpose of protecting it for, or of restoring it to the owner, does not take or misappropriate it dishonestly, and is not guilty of an offence; but he is guilty of the offence above defined, if he appropriates it to his own use, when he knows or has the means of discovering the owner, or before he has used reasonable means to discover and give notice to the owner, and has kept the property a reasonable time to enable the owner to claim it.
(a) A finds a dollar on the high road, not knowing to whom the dollar belongs. A picks up the dollar. Here A has not committed the offence defined in this section.
Hence, in order to avoid criminal misappropriation, all you need to do is to take the tissue packet, sit on the seat and eat your food. When the person comes back, return the tissue packet to him. Viola, criminal offence avoided.
So, there you have it, the person leaving the tissue packet is guilty of an offence under the Environmental Public Health Act, but the person taking it is not guilty of any offence of theft, nor criminal misappropriation, provided the above recommended steps are taken.
Finally, since both parties are pots calling the kettle black, then both are equal. Hence rebutting your earlier attempts to try to say that the tissue packet reserver is not in the wrong, and the tissue packet taker is in the wrong.